fwh

Cheap Thrill

My apology to you for the 'ad hominem' approach I used in responding to your post.

Oolon Colluphid

Please name some evolutionary theorists who think there’s a bit of mind attached to matter. Or any scientist.

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?

You do know what an emergent phenomenon is, right? You have heard of evolutionary psychology, haven’t you? Or you could get yourself a copy of, eg, Dennett’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316180661/qid=1024671827/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-3023982-6555110" target="_blank">Consciousness Explained</a>. There’s a mass of research into this stuff, and none of it requires there to be ‘mind’ lurking in matter.

Another head/rectum interface.

Nope. Still sounds like confused gobbledegook. How does this have anything to do with anything?

So far you have failed to show a problem with the ‘TOE’ -- where is this external ‘mind’ that needs explaining and is unexplained? -- and your sneaking of supernaturalism into it makes the whole line of reasoning anti-science.

TTFN, Oolon

fwh

Oolon
Colluphid

Thanks for responding.

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.

Now, how do we find common ground for the continuing of this discussion? Clearly my view is contrary to your view - physical monism. 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 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.

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

Jayhawker Soule

Flail away? Your manners are no more compelling than your analogy. Which frequency of light did youy have in mind?

fwh

Oolon
Collupid

Originally posted by fwh:
Could we not say that the mind is related to thought (or the brain) as the eye is to light?

you said:
Nope. All the evidence suggests that thought is what brains do.
Mind is to brain as digestion is to stomach, or dialysis is to kidney.
Eye is to light as ear is to sound.

me:
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?

fwh

ReasonableDoubt

you said:
Flail away? Your manners are no more compelling than your analogy. Which frequency of light did youy have in mind?

me:
Thanks for responding. Any frequency, whether it be of the visible spectrum or not.

Secular Pinoy

First, no apologies necessary. Jeez, you got to expect those things in a discussion board. But thanks for the loving thought anyway!


That IS what we hear! Vibrations in the air. Just because we call it sound doesn't mean it's different. You seem to be arguing for some kind of essence or qualia of sensory perception, right? If so, then you're better off arguing your points in the Philosophy Forum three floors up.

We perceive outside stimuli using our sense organ. How we interpret it is based on our background knowledge of experience, prejudice and moods. That is not really ground breaking and is quite old.

I'm still at a loss about what you are saying. You are a monist idealist, like George Berkeley perhaps? I hope you have read Bertrand Russell's critique of idealism in The Problems of Philosophy. You can go to the Philosophy Forum and see how idealism fares.

The problem we have for your idealism is that your position consists with no evidential support but mere philosophizing. You are saying that we ought to see evolution through the eyes of idealism and not through the eyes of materialism. Yet your position muddles, rather than clarifies, what is already known. I cannot make heads or tails with your exposition.

Science has become fruitful when scientists left outmoded concepts of idealism or dualism, and started working with methodological naturalism. Tell me, what possible fruitful results could a paradigm shift towards your idealism have on Evolution? Or science in general? Let's cancel the thought experiments and philosophizing. I need something concrete.

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

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. 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. Whoever said "nothing is more real than nothing" had it right, IMO. So I'm not even aware of a need to posit a god or a soul in my supposition.

you said:
You do know what an emergent phenomenon is, right? You have heard of evolutionary psychology, haven’t you? Or you could get yourself a copy of, eg, Dennett’s Consciousness Explained. There’s a mass of research into this stuff, and none of it requires there to be ‘mind’ lurking in matter.

me:
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.

you said:
Nope. Still sounds like confused gobbledegook. How does this have anything to do with anything?

So far you have failed to show a problem with TOE--where is this external 'mind' that needs explaining and remains unexplained?--and your sneaking of supernaturalism into it makes the whole line of reasoning anti-science.

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

Secular Pinoy

Humans have a meaningful relationship with the world. As an organism, we are a part of the Natural Ecosystem, even though we may end up destroying it.

Alas, unfortunately, I do not share your idealism. It's nothing more than an outmoded way of thinking. You have already assumed idealism, when it is not even proved, or even shown to be plausible. First, you have to show that all other rival systems (material monism, dualism) are wrong, or less plausible than your idealism. Then show that idealism is not merely plausible but probable (likely).

fwh

Cheap Thrill

you said:
Humans have a meaningful relationship with this world. As an organism we are part of a Natural Ecosystem, even though we may end up destroying it.

me:
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. 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.

Oolon Colluphid accused me of not being familiar with Bertrand Russell's critique of 'idealism'. I'm very familiar with it; which is why I reject Bishop Berkeley's spiritual/subjective idealism . For years I carried around in my billfold the following quote from Russell; which we are all aware of and I can quote it from memory. "That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving... and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--..." I understand; of course, that he was making a case for skepticism. But in making his case he assumed it reasonable to accept and CANONIZE a scientific worldview that fails to offer any meaning, value, or purpose for human existence. Does physical monism always provide the best methods for determining truth? Can this monist view best provide a basis for deciding what mind is? I don't think so.

Cheap Thrill:
Alas, unfortunately, I do not share your idealism. It's nothing more than an outmoded way of thinking. You have already assumed idealism, when it is not even proved, or even shown to be plausible. First, you have to show that all other rival systems (material monism, dualism) are wrong, or less plausible than your idealism. Then show that idealism is not merely plausible but probable (likely).

me:
So we persist in a world view which threatens the destruction of all civilisation. Isn't that reason enough to assume that a search for an alternative to the status quo is a necessity? I will try to show why other systems are less plausible than my 'objective idealism'. That's going to take time. I'll work on it. In the meantime, I continue to be amazed at the hypnotised state physical monism has imposed on people. The following quote best expresses the state of mind I think this hypnotism invokes:"as though, because it is something we can do in the water, drowning should be included as one of the different ways of swimming".

BTW thanks for your comments and suggestions!