Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 06-24-2002, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fwh:
Oolon Colluphid

Thanks for responding.

Welcome!

Quote:

You said:
Okay... did you have a point? Your idea appears to be that mind is something external to brains. Please offer some evidence

me:
Correct. I would agree with Goethe's assessment in describing the phenomenal world as mental in essence but perceived under the mode of matter.

Erm, I hope that wasn�t meant to be evidence?!

Quote:

Now, how do we find common ground for the continuing of this discussion?

By you offering some evidence for �mind� having some external reality, and by couching the idea in ways that make testable predictions.

Quote:

Clearly my view is contrary to your view - physical monism.

I neither know nor care what monism is. I call my view scientific rationalism.

Quote:

We start from opposite poles in regards to epistemology. I am a monist(objective idealism). You believe matter is the primary phenomenon to be studied.

I think (not �believe�) that matter is what stuff is made of, and that there is no evidence for an external �mind�. Please correct me (with empirical evidence) if I�m wrong.

Quote:

I believe thinking(language) itself to be the primary phenomenon to be studied before any accurate account can be made of the actual world in which we live.

So where is the �thinking� that goes on in a dinoflagellate or proton? IOW, on what grounds do you believe this?

Quote:

I understand that the onus is on me to submit evidence of the persuasiveness of my view.

Further: it must be testable, empirical evidence, not philosophy.

Quote:

However, I must be met half-way in this endeavor. I'm going to ask a very difficult thing, maybe impossible, and that is to start off with as few a priori assumptions regarding our opposite positions on epistemology as possible. Are you willing to that?

Maybe. If the assumptions are like the ones you�ve already offered, then I doubt we�ll get very far. But okay...

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 06-24-2002, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fwh:

Let us see if we can agree on somethings. Perception takes place by means of sense organs. Are there not two things to keep in mind in regard to perception of any kind?
A) Let's don't confuse the perception with its cause. I do not hear undulating molecules(sound waves) of air; the name of what I hear is 'sound'.
B) I do not perceive anything with my sense-organs alone, but with my whole self. I may say that I hear a car passing by my house. However, in strict truth, all I merely hear with my ears is 'sound' - a blooming confusion of sounds. When I "hear a car passing by", I am hearing , not with my ears alone, but with all sorts of things. Mental habits, memory, imagination, feeling, and a will to be attentive all serve to separate the sound of the car from all the other sounds vibrating my ear drum simultaneously.

So, the world one apprehends is dependent upon the whole of the perceiver and not just his sense organs. Don't you agree?

Sure. In humans. In general, it�s mystical cobblers.

What of the photosensitive �eyespot� of Euglena? It�s a single-celled organism: no brain, no nerves, no �mental habits�. It just senses light, and moves towards it, the better to photosynthesise. Are you claiming that a Euglena knows what it�s doing?

How about the �perception of a stimulus� that causes a sea anemone�s cnida to fire?
<a href="http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Cnidaria&contgroup=Animals#TOC2" target="_blank">http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Cnidaria&contgroup=Animals#TOC2</a>
I don�t see any �mental habits, memory, imagination, feeling, and a will to be attentive� in this. Do you?

How about various plant growth tropisms? How do they �know� to grow towards light and away from gravity?

How about reflexes? Hormonal responses?

How about a Geiger-Muller tube, an electronic thermometer or the solar cells of a calculator?

Brains are part of the nervous system, and nervous systems are not necessary to receive and act on stimulus inputs: an organism does not need to �perceive�, in our human sense, in order to sense things. Sure, in more �advanced� animals, the CNS is used to co-ordinate all this stuff. But the basis is, noting that the environment is not homogeneous, and acting upon it. Where�s the �mind� in this?

Edited to add: Oh yeah, and this sensing is the result of well-understood chemistry and physics, not because there is a mind at work in it. Need I introduce you to the concept of Ockham's razor??

TTFN, Oolon

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

Oolon Colluphid · 06-24-2002, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fwh:
Oolon Colluphid

you said:
Please name some evolutionary theorists who believes a little bit of mind is attached to matter. Or any scientists.

me:
Most all of them do.

Then name some and quote them. In all my years of reading I�ve never heard of such a thing.

Quote:

The phrase was just a metaphor I used to demonstrate mind as a product or epiphanon of matter.

A what?? Please define obscure terms, especially ones not in standard dictionaries -- it�s a new one on me, and Google hasn�t heard of it (in English) either. But if it just mean �product�, then fair enough. I agree that�s what mind is. An emergent phenomenon arising from the complexity of some matter. Try looking up neural networks.

Quote:

you said:
If it�s not natural, then by definition it�s supernatural! So you are arguing for a soul and god, whatever your claims to the contrary. How are you not? On what grounds?

me:
But I believe mind IS natural. Whether it preexisted matter or whether it emerges from matter, it is a fact! It exists! We are going to have to deal with it. There's nothing supernatural about it.

Then why did you say:

Quote:

My belief is that [...] the basic assumption that mind has a natural explanation, as you stated, will be found to be false. (My emphasis.)

Okay... if it does not have a natural explanation, but is not supernatural, just what the blue hell is it?!!

Quote:

We have to pick our poison; either mind precedes matter or matter precedes mind. That matter and mind exists at all is still a great mystery to me.

What you�ve got there, then, is an argument from personal incredulity / ignorance. To repeat again, on what grounds do you think mind precedes matter?

Quote:

Whoever said "nothing is more real than nothing" had it right, IMO.

Huh?

Quote:

So I'm not even aware of a need to posit a god or a soul in my supposition.

Okay. So what exactly is this not-natural not-supernatural hypothesis of yours?

Quote:

I didn't make myself clear in my post you are referring to. There is great research going on as you pointed out. However; IMO because modern evolution assumes 'matter precedes mind' it will find all of its research findings to be of some practical value; but it will fail in producing any sort of meaningful relationship between humans and the world(mind) in which they live. I think we have seen the signs of this for some time.

Sorry, still unclear. You do realise that an external �mind� is required by none of the masses of research into consciousness, yeah? What sort of �meaningful relationship� do you want?

Quote:

I hope I have answered at least some of your questions re mind and supernaturalism.

Erm, yeah... mind is not natural in origin... but not supernatural either. Yup, crystal clear.

Quote:

Now I have to show a problem with TOE. I hope to show that Darwin and later thinkers thought phenomena were held to have an independent and objective existence apart from themselves. I will have to show; then, that this kind of thinking assumes a naively realistic view of the universe. Excepting modern physics, most modern sciences are mistaken in this regard. More later.

Just cut to the chase: evolution explains biological complexity. A mind, by doing all the clever stuff you cite (memories, feelings, imagination, etc) is therefore a complex thing. You are apparently positing a non-biological complexity. So:

1. what has it to do with evolutionary theory, and how is it a problem for it?

2. whence this complexity? All the (naturally-occuring) organised complexity we know of is the result of evolution. How did this not-natural not-supernatural complexity arise?

3. please offer evidence that this complexity even exists outside of biological entities!

TTFN, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 06-24-2002, 04:07 AM

Quote:

How can this be a meaningful relationship between man and the environment if we show every indication of destroying that which we are having this relationship with.

Science is about finding out how the world is. Knowing how it is allows us to act for good or ill (however defined) on the best information. Philosophy is about deciding how we�d like it to be. You are confusing the two with this 'idealism'. Please keep your eco-mysticism in check if you wish to progress this discussion.

Quote:

The TOE that you and others say I have to disprove is permeated with the idea that there IS no meaning to life; sorry, get used to it. Everything is ultimately absurd and meaningless.

Well this discussion shows signs of being so. What sort of �meaning� do you think life should have then? And how is it something empirical, rather than something we ourselves construct?

The theory of evolution you refer to, by the way... do you mean the fact of common descent, or the various scientific theories that account for it? Which theories do you consider incorrect -- natural selection, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium...?

Quote:

Oolon Colluphid accused me of not being familiar with Bertrand Russell's critique of 'idealism'.

I did? Where? It�d be rather difficult for me to suggest that, since I myself am unfamiliar with any critique of this by Russell...

Quote:

Does physical monism always provide the best methods for determining truth?

Define �truth�. If you mean facts and understanding about the natural world, then what do you offer instead? Mysticism? Cultural relativism?

Quote:

Can this monist view best provide a basis for deciding what mind is? I don't think so.

<sigh> On what grounds?

TTFN, Oolon

fwh · 06-24-2002, 08:30 AM

Oolon

me:
Sorry, it was Cheap Thrill who referenced Bertrand Russell. Btw, thanks for your patience in regard to this thread. I appreciate your attempt to keep me on task.

Oolon:
1. what has it to do with evolutionary theory, and how is it a problem for it?

me:
You assert that TOE explains biological complexity and that mind being a complex thing is then explained by TOE. I agree that TOE is an EXPLANATION for complexity. However, an explanation, no matter how practical is not necessarily the correct one. I don't have to remind you that the Ptolemaic explanation of our solar system reigned for almost two thousand years as a practical explanation. It was overthrown, but only with the utmost difficulty. You would say then that all your concepts are empirical and testable. I would counter that you and modern science, by assuming physical monism, have taken the wrong road. So,while the evidence you see out your car window is explanatory of where you are going; eventually, you will have to turn around and head back when the signs of a dead end can no longer be dismissed as irrelevant.

The only way I can do this is by arguing, philosophically, the errant causality which as plagued the modern scientific paradigm. That, as I suggested in a much earlier post and Cheap Thrill and you have pointed out, should be attempted on the philosophy forum. And that is what I will do.

The alternative to the TOE, as an explanation of complexity, is the theory of an "Evolution of Conciousness" which Owen Barfield in his book 'Saving the Appearances' outlines very clearly. When the theory is adaquately explained I believe it will be seen to satisfy the requirements of Occam's razor quite well.

Thanks for your time and comments. I will pack my bags and move to the afore-mentioned forum.

fwh · 06-24-2002, 05:31 PM

Oolon

you said:
What sort of �meaning� do you think life should have then? And how is it something empirical, rather than something we ourselves construct?

me:
Empirical data requires scientific man to become more and more an onlooker, measuring with greater and greater precision, manipulating more and more cleverly an earth with which he "spiritually" becomes more and more a stranger. So, he can describe, weigh, and measure the processes of nature and to a large extent to control them; but the price he has paid has been the loss of his grasp of any meaning in either nature or himself as you imply in your above post.
Penetration to the meaning of a thing or process, as distinct from the ability to describe it exactly, involves a participation by the knower in the known. The meaning of what I am typing on the keyboard is not the physical pressure of fingers on the keys. Rather, it is the concepts expressed by the words I am typing. The only way of penetrating to these is to participate in them-to bring them to life in one's own mind by thinking them. A Russian, not knowing the English language, looking at this post would indeed be limited to describing its outer appearance. We are mere onlookers at a language we do not understand. But confronted with a language we have learned to understand, we not merely observe the shapes of the letters-in the very act of observing these we "read" their meaning through them. In the same way, if we want to know the meaning of nature, we must learn to read as well as to observe and describe. And we only can begin to "read" the meaning of nature, when we begin to apprehend it as a series of images symbolizing concepts. A contruct of our mind. Yes!
So to find meaning I suggest you must learn to "read", while retaining your hard-won treasure of exact observation and manipulative control-for no one would advocate a mere relapse into the past.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2002, 08:30 AM	#25
fwh Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Centralia, Il. Posts: 76	Oolon me: Sorry, it was Cheap Thrill who referenced Bertrand Russell. Btw, thanks for your patience in regard to this thread. I appreciate your attempt to keep me on task. Oolon: 1. what has it to do with evolutionary theory, and how is it a problem for it? me: You assert that TOE explains biological complexity and that mind being a complex thing is then explained by TOE. I agree that TOE is an EXPLANATION for complexity. However, an explanation, no matter how practical is not necessarily the correct one. I don't have to remind you that the Ptolemaic explanation of our solar system reigned for almost two thousand years as a practical explanation. It was overthrown, but only with the utmost difficulty. You would say then that all your concepts are empirical and testable. I would counter that you and modern science, by assuming physical monism, have taken the wrong road. So,while the evidence you see out your car window is explanatory of where you are going; eventually, you will have to turn around and head back when the signs of a dead end can no longer be dismissed as irrelevant. The only way I can do this is by arguing, philosophically, the errant causality which as plagued the modern scientific paradigm. That, as I suggested in a much earlier post and Cheap Thrill and you have pointed out, should be attempted on the philosophy forum. And that is what I will do. The alternative to the TOE, as an explanation of complexity, is the theory of an "Evolution of Conciousness" which Owen Barfield in his book 'Saving the Appearances' outlines very clearly. When the theory is adaquately explained I believe it will be seen to satisfy the requirements of Occam's razor quite well. Thanks for your time and comments. I will pack my bags and move to the afore-mentioned forum.

06-24-2002, 05:31 PM	#26
fwh Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Centralia, Il. Posts: 76	Oolon you said: What sort of �meaning� do you think life should have then? And how is it something empirical, rather than something we ourselves construct? me: Empirical data requires scientific man to become more and more an onlooker, measuring with greater and greater precision, manipulating more and more cleverly an earth with which he "spiritually" becomes more and more a stranger. So, he can describe, weigh, and measure the processes of nature and to a large extent to control them; but the price he has paid has been the loss of his grasp of any meaning in either nature or himself as you imply in your above post. Penetration to the meaning of a thing or process, as distinct from the ability to describe it exactly, involves a participation by the knower in the known. The meaning of what I am typing on the keyboard is not the physical pressure of fingers on the keys. Rather, it is the concepts expressed by the words I am typing. The only way of penetrating to these is to participate in them-to bring them to life in one's own mind by thinking them. A Russian, not knowing the English language, looking at this post would indeed be limited to describing its outer appearance. We are mere onlookers at a language we do not understand. But confronted with a language we have learned to understand, we not merely observe the shapes of the letters-in the very act of observing these we "read" their meaning through them. In the same way, if we want to know the meaning of nature, we must learn to read as well as to observe and describe. And we only can begin to "read" the meaning of nature, when we begin to apprehend it as a series of images symbolizing concepts. A contruct of our mind. Yes! So to find meaning I suggest you must learn to "read", while retaining your hard-won treasure of exact observation and manipulative control-for no one would advocate a mere relapse into the past.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.