The relationship between science and materialism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Geoff

I am glad to see you have abandoned all those silly non-eliminativist physicalist positions and have admitted the bald truth of coherent materialism: minds don't exist.

Ooh, it sounds so crazy, doesn't it? Those whacky old materialists, denying the existence of the mind. Whatever won't they think of next?

Tell us what you think "mind" is, Geoff. Start from the beginning, so we don't have any folk psychological baggage.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

"The mind is the bit of the brain that does all the stuff that can't be physical, as per my defintion."

Something like that I'd suspect.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

The problem here is that nobody understands my system so when I try to define things for them they end up imposing their own meanings on words that I am using to mean what *I* mean. I can explain quite clearly what I mean in terms of neutral monism, but you woudn't be able to understand it

Please dont take Interesting Ian's route. You are doing a lot better than him so far.

Now, this DOES NOT IMPLY that everybody should agree with you... does it?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Ooh, it sounds so crazy, doesn't it? Those whacky old materialists, denying the existence of the mind. Whatever won't they think of next?

Tell us what you think "mind" is, Geoff. Start from the beginning, so we don't have any folk psychological baggage.

~~ Paul

OK. Start at the beginning. We need to try to find a system which, once constructed, allows us to explain what mind is coherently without denying it exists. In order to get to the point where you understand why that explanation works, and is better than those we have been discussing, it is neccesary that people actually try to understand the system. When I tried to explain it before this is not what happened. Instead, long before I had any change get the system off the ground, people looked at the very first component of this system and started attacking. They did this because even that first component contradicts the reductive physicalism they wish to defend. This may be an understandable reaction, but it prevents people from getting to the point where they understand the system well enough to be able to criticise it in an informed manner. So I am going to have to ask you, just for the purposes of getting to the point where you understand my description of mind, to resist the temptation to attack the first component of the system before you have had a chance to understand the rest of it. OK?

Observation 1 : "absolute nothingness" has no referent.

My system starts with the observation that we have no need for a concept of absolutely nothing, where "absolutely nothing" means "not even the potentional for anything" or "the total abscence of everything". This concept would be the concept of non-existence. But if it had ever existed, then nothing would exist. Since something obviously exists, it follows that there was never a state of absolute nothingness

Definition 1 : "Being"

We now have a word ("nothing") and a symbol ("0") which don't appear to have a referent. So there is no difficulty involved if I wish to give them a referent. The "thing" I am defining them to refer to also isn't really a "thing". Instead, it can be viewed in a variety of ways. It can be thought of as "Beingness itself" - the thing which all things which actually exist have in common but isn't specific to any of them. It can also be viewed as "Everything" - for the same reason. I shall refer to this entity as Zero or Being. An extended discussion of the relationship between Being and Nothing may well be required. Fortunately Sartre and Heidegger have already done this, so I don't have to.

If everyone is happy with those, I will continue. If people start furiously attacking these foundations before they have tried to understand what I build upon them, then this is a waste of time because I'll never actually get to the point where I can answer Paul's question.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Geoff

Observation 1 : "absolute nothingness" has no referent.

My system starts with the observation that we have no need for a concept of absolutely nothing, where "absolutely nothing" means "not even the potentional for anything" or "the total abscence of everything". This concept would be the concept of non-existence. But if it had ever existed, then nothing would exist. Since something obviously exists, it follows that there was never a state of absolute nothingness

You do not know that absolute nothingness couldn't change into somethingness. For that matter, absolute nothingness might equal somethingness. But anyway.

Quote:

Definition 1 : "Being"

We now have a word ("nothing") and a symbol ("0") which don't appear to have a referent. So there is no difficulty involved if I wish to give them a referent. The "thing" I am defining them to refer to also isn't really a "thing". Instead, it can be viewed in a variety of ways. It can be thought of as "Beingness itself" - the thing which all things which actually exist have in common but isn't specific to any of them. It can also be viewed as "Everything" - for the same reason. I shall refer to this entity as Zero or Being. An extended discussion of the relationship between Being and Nothing may well be required. Fortunately Sartre and Heidegger have already done this, so I don't have to.

I'm uncomfortable with the word entity, but carry on.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As an aside, I just realized that, in this eliminativist statement:

minds don't exist

I do not know what the definition of mind is, so I don't know what it means.

Carry on.

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

As an aside, I just realized that, in this eliminativist statement:

minds don't exist

I do not know what the definition of mind is, so I don't know what it means.

Carry on.

~~ Paul

From what I understand they mean "mind" as in its common useage e.g.:

Originally Posted by OED

IV. Mental or psychic faculty.

19. a. (a) The seat of awareness, thought, volition, feeling, and memory; cognitive and emotional phenomena and powers considered as constituting a presiding influence; the mental faculty of a human being (esp. as regarded as being separate from the physical); (occas.) this whole system as constituting a person's character or individuality.

(b) Esp. in contexts where a definition, summary, or analysis of this faculty is provided.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So we've eliminated the seat of things, along with a separate mental faculty. Sounds good to me.

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

OK. Start at the beginning. We need to try to find a system which, once constructed, allows us to explain what mind is coherently without denying it exists.

...snip...

Can I just clarify something? You seem to be saying that one of the basic assumptions (axioms) you start your worldview with is that "minds exist as something that isn't physical"?

In other words that minds exist is a given in your system?

(ETA I see you explain it below.)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You do not know that absolute nothingness couldn't change into somethingness.

Ah, but I do. If it changed into somethingness then it was never absolute nothingness to begin with. Instead, it was nothingness with some sort of potential to become somethingness. It was like the Buddhist conception of "Sunyata" or "Pregnant Void".

Quote:

For that matter, absolute nothingness might equal somethingness. But anyway.

No, that wouldn't work. It only works if it equals everythingness. Nothingness and Everythingness have no identity. All of the individual somethings which make up everything do have identity.

Quote:

I'm uncomfortable with the word entity, but carry on.
~~ Paul

Well, perhaps my previous answer might help. Everythingness and nothingness are special sorts of "entities" because they have no individualised identity.

I hope you are now more comfortable with the bits I have explained so far, and I will continue to the next stage. At this point, I want to wipe clean the metaphysical slate and declare that neither mind nor matter are fundamental existents. You can think of this in terms of the example with the external cause of the experience of a chair and the actual experience of a chair. Physicalists want to put the label "physical" on both the experience and the external cause, leading to a great deal of confusion. What is particularly problematic is their claim that the external world is "physical" when in fact all they really know is that "there's something out there causing me to have experiences of objects". So in order to avoid this problematic definition of "physical" I am going to say that the external world is neither mental nor is it physical. Since that definition excludes everything we currently have words for, I am going to need to invent a new one. I am going to call it "neutral", in order to make clear that it is neither mind nor is it matter. My system is now complete. Everything which exists is accounted for in this system and all it consists of is Being/Zero and a neutral entity. There are no such thing as "minds". But, and it is very important "but", there is no such thing as "matter" either. I can hear you know wanting to say "But that's even worse than eliminativism! It's double eliminativism!" But it isn't. Instead, I am going to show that it is reductive without being eliminative. In my next post I will explain how the reduction works, i.e. what "minds" really are. But I will wait first for you to respond to this post. I also want you to see that what I have described is NOT ontological idealism.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Darat

Can I just clarify something? You seem to be saying that one of the basic assumptions (axioms) you start your worldview with is that "minds exist as something that isn't physical"?

In other words that minds exist is a given in your system?

No. See last post. I am asking you to dump BOTH your concept of mind AND your concept of matter.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm good so far. I presume you're going to tell me the relationship between Being and the neutral, and why both are required?

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

Mercutio

Hello?

Quote:

Nope - that's what you are doing. I will try once more. This time, don't assume you are talking to Ian or Lifegazer. You are talking to Geoff now.

I have not talked with LG much. I understand Ian, and understand hammy. I also understand you.

Quote:

OK...in small sentences this time....

1) I didn't define any of those terms!!!
2) I gave people the option whether or not they wanted to define them!!!

Um...this is so obvious, it could not possibly have been what I was referring to by "the language you have chosen." I am, rather looking at the language you are using to frame the question and to frame your critiques. If you think that I am trying to pin other people's language on you, your misunderstanding runs deep.

Quote:

How can I be constrained by my assumptions and my language if I haven't assumed anything and I am allowing people to provide THEIR OWN definitions?

Do you agree that the question you are asking is a coherent one?* That you are holding off on assumptions and letting others fill in their definitions?

Quote:

And I gave them the option of not defining them at all!!!!

Indeed, or refusing to fill in their definitions?

Quote:

Understand yet?

Understood long ago.

Quote:

Geoff

* because I do not agree. It is your question itself that demonstrates that you do not agree with me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I'm good so far. I presume you're going to tell me the relationship between Being and the neutral, and why both are required?

~~ Paul

I'll answer the second question first. Why are both required?

The answer is that both are required if we are going to avoid getting re-embroiled in the ontological mess that we have been discussing in this thread. I hope that the arguments so far have shown you that the only way to coherently defend materialism is to defend eliminative materialism. But there is a problem with eliminativism: nearly everybody thinks it is absurd. The result, in terms of the history of ideas, is demonstrated by hammegk. It is hammegk's argument that this system is supposed to avoid. His position goes something like this:

A) The language we use to describe our experiences of reality is inherently dualistic
B) But we all agree dualism must be wrong
C) Therefore monism must be true
D) The only form of materialist monism which stands up is eliminativism
E) The only alternative is idealist monism
F) So we must choose between (D) and (E)
G) We can't choose (D) because denying the existence of minds is absurd
H) Therefore idealism must be true

My argument departs from hammegk's at step (E). The purpose is to block his claim that the only alternative to eliminative materialism is idealism. The reason I want to do this is because I do not believe idealism gives the correct account of the nature of the reality external to mind which I have claimed exists, which you presumably agree exists, but which hammegk claims does not exist.

Now - how does my system avoid the problems? Why do we need both the Zero and the neutral entity? The answer is that in the monist systems of both the eliminative materialist and the eliminative idealist there isn't enough theoretical space to account for the dualism we acknowedged right back at (A). That's why both those systems end up having to eliminate something. The materialists eliminate mind, the idealists eliminate matter. Both of them do it because their system of fundamental existents hasn't got enough bits in it to account for these apparently different thing. There is no space in the system for two sorts of stuff. So one of them has to go. The reason I need both Being/Zero and the neutral entity is to make enough theoretical space within the system to avoid having to eliminate anything at all, whilst at the same time avoiding being a dualist.

I'll wait for a response to this bit before continuing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why is denying the existence of minds absurd? We haven't denied the existence of mental activity or of experiencing, only that there is a separate "thing" called mind. Mind is an abstraction used to refer to the working of a brain and the activity that goes on, which is "minding". All the mental stuff is just a verb, not a noun. The problem arises from the language itself. It is not the case that all languages support the distinctions that ours does. From what I understand, there are some African languages that do not even allow the formulation of the mind-body problem (this from John Searle).

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Why is denying the existence of minds absurd?

Wasp, I just don't know how to answer this question. Fortunately, I don't have to, because I already know that 99 out of 100 people would never ask it.

I've already said that eliminativism is logically coherent. Therefore I cannot (empirically) refute the claim that minds don't exist.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wasp, I'm hoping to learn the answer to your question as we continue. I don't understand the problem either. Seems like we've dumped a fundamentally dualistic notion of mind, yet people still want something called mind. So they laugh at the notion that we're denying mind, even as they have no idea what their own definition of mind is.

I'm good so far, Geoff. I presume that something coming up will convince me that Being and Neutral aren't two fundamental types of existents, resulting in neutral dualism.

~~ Paul

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Why is denying the existence of minds absurd? We haven't denied the existence of mental activity or of experiencing, only that there is a separate "thing" called mind. Mind is an abstraction used to refer to the working of a brain and the activity that goes on, which is "minding". All the mental stuff is just a verb, not a noun. The problem arises from the language itself. It is not the case that all languages support the distinctions that ours does. From what I understand, there are some African languages that do not even allow the formulation of the mind-body problem (this from John Searle).

Geoff, I have to agree here. Zen would also support the view that what we call "mind" (a separated individual) is a false notion.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I don't understand the problem either.

Then we need to rewind. What don't you understand?

Quote:

Seems like we've dumped a fundamentally dualistic notion of mind, yet people still want something called mind.

No, Paul. They need it. Not as a pychological crutch but as the only way they can actually talk sensibly about the way the world appears to them. The reason our language is inherently dualistic is because our experience of the world is itself inherently dualistic. Physicalists want to deny both of these things. All of your definitional difficulties resulted from your wish to redefine an inherently dualistic set of terms so that they no longer appeared dualistic. But if you do that then you end up having to eliminate "folk psychology" and to claim that minds don't exist, or give some meaningless waffle about how "minds are just brain processes" without ever explaining what on earth this is supposed to mean or providing any sort of convincing explanations as to how it happens. Sure, explanations are given. But they don't make sense. They try to eliminate subjectivity but never explain how this can work. They just redefine the subjective things to be objective/physical things and expect people to accept this as a convincing explanation for the existence of subjectivity. The whole position revolves around an abuse of the word IS. "Minds ARE brain processes". This word IS doesn't mean anything. It's the "little bit of magic" that makes the system work:

************************************************** ******
The entire explanation (wasp's is a good example) - the CRITICAL piece of the explanation - the piece of the explanation which is supposed to be the key to understanding how subjective things could arise from physical/objective ones is one word which doesn't mean anything : IS.
************************************************** ******

So it isn't an explanation. None of the actual content of the non-eliminativists theories being touted here make any difference to the key problem of how you bridge the gap between subjective and objective. There is lots of hypothetical waffle, but the KEY part of the explanation is never forthcoming. All we get is an entirely meaningless "IS".

The problem:

Now, if at this point you are feeling like you want to reject the previous paragraph then think about why you (and everybody else) ended up having to defend eliminativism. It was to get rid of the entirely meaningless IS!!! So please do not say you don't see the problem. The problem is the meaningless "IS" which forces the truly logical materialists to be eliminativists.

Why my system is better:

I can provide a meaning for the meaningless "IS". It is still going to be "IS", in a sort of way, but this time the "IS" is going to mean something instead of being a fig leaf covering up the embarrassing hole in materialist theories of mind.

Quote:

I'm good so far, Geoff. I presume that something coming up will convince me that Being and Neutral aren't two fundamental types of existents, resulting in neutral dualism.

That's easy. As already explained Being/Nothing/Zero/Everything isn't a thing. It has no identity. It lacks the defining characteristics of a "something". Therefore there are not two fundamental types of existent. There is the neutral entity, and there is existence itself. This can be restated more simply as:

A neutral entity exists.

Do you see why that is monism and not dualism?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Geoff, I have to agree here. Zen would also support the view that what we call "mind" (a separated individual) is a false notion.

BDZ

You have misunderstood the position I am defending, as have 99% of the other people here. Maybe if you followed my posts to Paul, it might help.

Geoff

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not bothering? Sorry man, I have read most of the thread and certainly almost all your posts... if that doesn't show you interest I guess you are falling in the trap Ian's fall (and I have told you before in this very thread).

So, is this about understand each other positions or about you you you? Its your thread, so I guess you have the right to just tell me to go away. I guess.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Not bothering? Sorry man, I have read most of the thread and certainly almost all your posts... if that doesn't show you interest I guess you are falling in the trap Ian's fall (and I have told you before in this very thread).

So, is this about understand each other positions or about you you you? Its your thread, so I guess you have the right to just tell me to go away. I guess.

I am sorry. It's just very frustrating for me that people keep mis-identifying my position as idealism or dualism. It's neither, and it's not vulnerable to the criticisms those positions are vulnerable to. But most of the people here as so accustomed to arguing with dualist Christians or idealists like Ian that they continually try to rebutt my position by using arguments that might work against dualists and idealists but do not work against neutral monism.

[UndercoverElephant]

BDZ

Where I say neutral entity, you might just as well read "Tao". Does that help?

I haven't even defined "mind", so far (this time round), so I don't see how you could object to this.

Geoff

[Ichneumonwasp]

Now wait a second. I didn't accuse you of dualism or idealism just then. I asked a simple question which you did not answer. If there is nothing wrong with viewing the universe as devoid of something called minds, while seeing the universe as filled with people whose brains function and that functioning is "minding", then there is nothing wrong with our position, so it is not impossible for mental function to be accounted for by natural means. If that is your position then I have no quarrel with you at all. My only interest and role in this whole thing was to oppose the idea that natural explanations of mental processing is impossible.

I will sit quietly back and wait for the rest of the explanation.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

Where I say neutral entity, you might just as well read "Tao". Does that help?

I haven't even defined "mind", so far (this time round), so I don't see how you could object to this.

Geoff

What Im trying to point out is that this "neutral entity" is outside our conceptual panorama. We can call it "the unknown" or whatever we like (its irrelevant). Thats why I dont see the point in trying to reach a reasonable position. Every concept and every theory is wrong, our language limits what we can think.

That said, it is important to note that, even if you are not giving definitions of "mind" you still asume that it is there. So, if you are fast in saying that assuming materialism to defend materialism is wrong, you have to be aware about you are assuming your neutral monism, even if you decide not to make explicit the entities you need to asume in order for your possition to be "more correct" than materialism.

Do you see my point?

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul,

Another way of explaining it.

Language is naturally split into subjective things and objective things, into mental and physical. If we allow this dualistic language when defining our terms for the purposes of these arguments then, as we have seen, this leads to logical problems. There are two strategies currently being employed to get out of the logical problem. The first strategy is eliminativism, which effectively chops off the subjective half of language, and all the terms which naturally belong in that half. This works logically, but involves the outright denial of the existence of mind and claims half our language is excess to requirements. The second strategy is to tell a fancy story about how "minds ARE brain processes" and hope nobody notices that the the "ARE" doesn't actually mean anything at all. So the problem with the second strategy is we have an unexplained and apparent inexplicable "IS". Now - think back to my system. What's in it? We don't have any mind or matter. But what we do have is something called "Being". "Being" is another form of "is" - they are both parts of the verb "to be". So in actual fact the "extra thing" in my system that you might say isn't needed is another manifestation of the meaningless "IS" which invoked by the non-eliminative materialists. But there is a difference. Their "is" doesn't mean anything and mine does. Theirs is in the wrong place and mine is in the right place. All I am doing is re-arranging the components of the system so things have the correct relationships with each other instead of the incorrect ones.

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Geoff

What Im trying to point out is that this "neutral entity" is outside our conceptual panorama.

Kant would have agreed. I think we can do better. Call me a hopeless optimist.

Quote:

We can call it "the unknown" or whatever we like (its irrelevant). Thats why I dont see the point in trying to reach a reasonable position. Every concept and every theory is wrong, our language limits what we can think.

You are welcome to give up if you like.

Quote:

That said, it is important to note that, even if you are not giving definitions of "mind" you still asume that it is there.

How do you know that? I haven't got there yet.

Quote:

So, if you are fast in saying that assuming materialism to defend materialism is wrong, you have to be aware about you are assuming your neutral monism, even if you decide not to make explicit the entities you need to asume in order for your possition to be "more correct" than materialism.

I have not "assumed" neutral monism. So far, all I am doing is explaining it.

Quote:

Do you see my point?

Not really.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Quote:

All we get is an entirely meaningless "IS".

Wait a second again. THe only "is" used was when we were trying to use the short-hand dualistic vocabulary that we all use. That is our vocabulary. But I explicitly told you at the outset that the whole idea of "mind" as a noun was wrong. The solution has nothing to do with using a non-referential "is". The problem is that mind is a misconception as a "thing". We don't need any "is" relationship when we speak properly about the processes of the brain. The brain functions, it "minds" -- that thing we call mind is not anything but the action, the verb. There is no "is" involved in that view.

We would all be better off using verbs for all the processes the brain "does". The brain calculates. The brain experiences. The brain thinks. The brain perceives actively. Etc. Once you introduce this "is" -- again it was used initially only for ease of communication -- you imply a correspondence between two things. One of them is a thing, the other action.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Geoff

That's easy. As already explained Being/Nothing/Zero/Everything isn't a thing. It has no identity. It lacks the defining characteristics of a "something". Therefore there are not two fundamental types of existent. There is the neutral entity, and there is existence itself. This can be restated more simply as:

A neutral entity exists.

Do you see why that is monism and not dualism?

So if something exists, there must be the concept of existence. Got it. Or is it more than that?

Quote:

Language is naturally split into subjective things and objective things, into mental and physical. If we allow this dualistic language when defining our terms for the purposes of these arguments then, as we have seen, this leads to logical problems. There are two strategies currently being employed to get out of the logical problem. The first strategy is eliminativism, which effectively chops off the subjective half of language, and all the terms which naturally belong in that half. This works logically, but involves the outright denial of the existence of mind and claims half our language is excess to requirements.

You're mixing up two things, as people have already pointed out.

Quote:

The second strategy is to tell a fancy story about how "minds ARE brain processes" and hope nobody notices that the the "ARE" doesn't actually mean anything at all. So the problem with the second strategy is we have an unexplained and apparent inexplicable "IS". Now - think back to my system. What's in it? We don't have any mind or matter. But what we do have is something called "Being". "Being" is another form of "is" - they are both parts of the verb "to be". So in actual fact the "extra thing" in my system that you might say isn't needed is another manifestation of the meaningless "IS" which invoked by the non-eliminative materialists. But there is a difference. Their "is" doesn't mean anything and mine does. Theirs is in the wrong place and mine is in the right place. All I am doing is re-arranging the components of the system so things have the correct relationships with each other instead of the incorrect ones.

So Being is some thing? I thought it was just a concept. Someone who was being careful wouldn't say "minds are brain processes." They would say "the word mind is a label for a set of brain processes." Note what Wasp has been saying.

Anyway, maybe things will be clearer when you continue.

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff

Paul,

Another way of explaining it. ...snip... The first strategy is eliminativism, which effectively chops off the subjective half of language, and all the terms which naturally belong in that half. This works logically, but involves the outright denial of the existence of mind and claims half our language is excess to requirements.

...snip...

No it doesn't Geoff.

Let me go back to the unicorn analogy - when we acquired enough knowledge to know that the original definition for unicorn was inaccurate, i.e. that it didn't reflect reality it didn't mean the word had to be dropped we just had to learn to use it it in a different way that better matched reality.

Another analogy is to consider Newton's laws - which are wrong since we now know they do not describe reality accurately, however that doesn't mean we still can't make use of them when they are good enough for the task in hand. The difference is now we know they are not good enough for some tasks so we can make an informed choice when it is appropriate to carry on using them or not.

If the eliminatives are correct "mind" could still be a handy word to keep around and use however when wanting to speak more accurately about certain topics we'd need to drop it, just like we drop Newton's laws when we need to be that little bit more accurate.

[chriswl]

Originally Posted by Darat

If the eliminatives are correct "mind" could still be a handy word to keep around and use however when wanting to speak more accurately about certain topics we'd need to drop it, just like we drop Newton's laws when we need to be that little bit more accurate.

Exactly. There are folk who don't find the language of "folk psychology" adequate. They include neuroscientists, psychologists, cognitive scientists and some philosophers. That doesn't mean they have to talk of the mind exclusively in terms of neurons, any more than we talk of life exclusively in terms of proteins. Biology is full of higher level concepts (reproduction, metabolism, symbiosis, evolution, photosynthesis) without ever fundamentally being more than chemistry. We will discover meaningful, higher level ways of understanding minds, in fact we already have some e.g. the computer metaphor and the intentional systems approach. We will develop better theories, this is just the start.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Wait a second again. THe only "is" used was when we were trying to use the short-hand dualistic vocabulary that we all use.

Wrong. You use it as the CRUX of your argument. And you NEVER explain what it means.

Quote:

The brain functions, it "minds" -- that thing we call mind is not anything but the action, the verb. There is no "is" involved in that view.

Wrong again. Here' why.

Look at the following statement:

"The computer functions, it "computes" -- that thing we call computing is not anything but action, the verb. There is no "is" involved in that view."

This statement is correct. The computer computes. But in the case of the computer, there isn't a mind. So there isn't any need for an IS. We can just use "computes". This time there really isn't any "is". No worries about mental vocabulary for computers. "Computation" here refers ONLY to behaviour in a machine. No meaningless "IS" required, because the entire problematic half of the dictionary doesn't get a look-in. You are not saying that the computation "IS" anything else. It's just a computation. The computer computes. No minds. No "IS"! Happy with that?

Your problem is that you want the statement you made to work in exactly the same way. You want me to accept that what computing is to computers is exactly the same as what minds are to brains. This is either going to end up being eliminativism or there will be an abuse of the word "IS".

Quote:

The brain functions, it "minds" -- that thing we call mind is not anything but the action, the verb. There is no "is" involved in that view.

What is the point in using the word "mind" here? All you have done is replace the word "computing" with the word "mind". "Brain's compute." Well, yes, in a way that is what they do. There appears to be something going on in the physical brain. It could be thought of as computing. You can call it "minding" if you like but your problem is that the thing you have now labelled "mind" doesn't have any mental properties!

So this time you have avoided the abusive use of the word "IS" but at the cost of sliding back into eliminativism. All you have done is taken one of the words from the mental side of the linguistic divide and use it describe physical activity on the other side of the divide which has no identifiable mental properties. You've included the word "mind", but it is meaning-free. It doesn't convey any more meaning than the word "compute" does. So this time you have a meaningless use of the word "mind" instead of a meaningless "is". You've removed the "is" but the logical problem has immediately resurfaced somewhere else.

Quote:

We would all be better off using verbs for all the processes the brain "does".

You mean "the brain computes".

Quote:

The brain calculates.

"The brain computes"

Quote:

The brain experiences.

OOOPS!!

Sorry. You were fine when you were using the computing analogies. Let's see...

"The computer experiences."

Nope. I don't think so, Wasp. I don't think my computer is experiencing me typing this sentence.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Definitions, definitions. There is the problem. Yours depend on your worldview, we cant "see" them unless we can completely understand your worldview (which is an impossible task unless we were you).

What if the computer can say "hey you are writing a sentence". Would it be experiencing your typing?

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul

Quote:

So if something exists, there must be the concept of existence. Got it. Or is it more than that?

The thing you claim to have "got" didn't have anything to do the quote you were responding to, so it doesn't sound like you "got it", no.

I asked you if you saw why this was monism and not dualism. You didn't answer. So here it is again:

Being/Nothing/Zero/Everything isn't a thing. It has no identity. It lacks the defining characteristics of a "something". Therefore there are not two fundamental types of existent. There is the neutral entity, and there is existence itself. This can be restated more simply as:

A neutral entity exists.

***Do you see why that is monism and not dualism?***

Quote:

Language is naturally split into subjective things and objective things, into mental and physical. If we allow this dualistic language when defining our terms for the purposes of these arguments then, as we have seen, this leads to logical problems. There are two strategies currently being employed to get out of the logical problem. The first strategy is eliminativism, which effectively chops off the subjective half of language, and all the terms which naturally belong in that half. This works logically, but involves the outright denial of the existence of mind and claims half our language is excess to requirements.

You're mixing up two things, as people have already pointed out.

Sorry, must have missed that one. What exactly have I "mixed up"?

Quote:

So Being is some thing?

Look, this isn't an understanding failure. It is a basic failure to read what I am writing. How many times do I have to explictly tell you that Being isn't a thing before you stop asking me whether Being is a thing?

Quote:

I thought it was just a concept.

It is more than a concept. Are YOU just a concept?

Quote:

Someone who was being careful wouldn't say "minds are brain processes." They would say "the word mind is a label for a set of brain processes." Note what Wasp has been saying.

That's just an expanded version of the meaningless "IS", Paul. It hasn't introduced the missing meaning. The meaning-content of

"the word mind is a label for a set of brain processes."

and

"minds are brain processes"

is the same.

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

What if the computer can say "hey you are writing a sentence". Would it be experiencing your typing?

No.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Quote:

I don't think my computer is experiencing me typing this sentence.

You really don't get this, do you? You really do not understand it. Who said anything about current computers and brains being the same, functioning in the same way? Computers do not have motivational systems, emotional systems, feeling systems. Of course a computer does not experience the same way as a brain does. It does sometning very different -- just computation. Brains do much, much more because of their structure. How do you not comprehend that?

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul,

I think I may understand why you are having a problem with this. Being is not a concept. But it is not a "thing" either". You therefore can't figure out what it is. But your problem is that you are trying to figure out "what isness is". You can't even ask the question "What is Being?" because you have to use the word "IS" to ask the question! So it's not a thing. But it's not just a concept either. The reason it manages to exist (in some sense) without being a thing is because of what I said before about it's lack of identity. When we ask the question "What is X?" We are asking "What is the identity of X?" or "How do we define this thing X in terms of all the other things?" But you can't really do that with being because the only answers which make sense - the only "things" we can provide that might be the identity of Being are everything and nothing. But these are the "things" which don't have any individualised identity. They apply to all things and no things respectively.

Any of that help?

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

You really don't get this, do you? You really do not understand it. Who said anything about current computers and brains being the same, functioning in the same way? Computers do not have motivational systems, emotional systems, feeling systems.

**** Computers do not have minds ****

Quote:

Of course a computer does not experience the same way as a brain does.

Oh my God. A "true believer".

Quote:

How do you not comprehend that?

It's incomprehensible.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Geoff

Look, this isn't an understanding failure. It is a basic failure to read what I am writing. How many times do I have to explictly tell you that Being isn't a thing before you stop asking me whether Being is a thing?

You have to stop writing things like this:

Quote:

But what we do have is something called "Being". "Being" is another form of "is" - they are both parts of the verb "to be". So in actual fact the "extra thing" in my system that you might say isn't needed is another manifestation of the meaningless "IS" which invoked by the non-eliminative materialists.

Emphasis mine.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Geoff

Any of that help?

It may help as we continue, which is what we should do. Act like a teacher, not a preacher. I'm happy to say you're describing a monism as long as this Being thing doesn't actually serve any function.

Quote:

It's incomprehensible.

You give us all this crap, yet you will not admit that there may be something it is like to be a computer. Pfffft.

~~ Paul