Freethought & Rationalism Archive

abe smith · 10-08-2002, 08:20 AM

Just like parenthetically to mention, in case anyone got the wrong category for me: I am an old Biologist: I am not now nor have I ever been a DUALIST! %The first & last thing I'm as sure of as I am of anything is that each human entity is ONE THING. Hope this takes care of any misapprehensions about that.
Corey I don't seem to have access to the textbooks you've referred me to; I'll keep trying, and also seek other sources. Thanks for your advice.

Feather · 10-08-2002, 09:19 AM

Jesse, I'm surprised that you have a degree in physics. I don't doubt it, nor do I doubt that it is possible. What surprises me about it is that you insist on attempting to apply a mode of thought that is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of science to the reality of things.

Why even pose the question "Why do we think?" when it cannot ever be answered so long as you insist it is outside the realm of that which is observable?

Solipsism is a waste of time. It provides no special insight or understanding of reality precisely because any "understanding" a particular line of reasoning provides cannot be tested.

You simply cannot have it both ways: either mind is physical or it is not. This is because It iisn't possible for a non-physical thing to interact with a physical one by definition.

Again, if you propose that mind is non-physical, then you cannot ever know "why" the "mind" "does" anything. The question is unanswerable, and therefore meaningless.

Corey Hammer · 10-08-2002, 10:59 AM

Jesse, quite frankly, my opinion of your arguments is very, very low. They are bankrupt as far as science is concerned. You offer no evidence but your own opinions and feelings based on logical fallacies and absolutely no evidence.

Science functions using methodological naturalism. I never have once said science will answer all questions, meaning about everything. Science will answer all questions thatwe can ask about the NATURAL UNIVERSE.

Your vague and unsubstantiated philosophies have no meaning insofar as they do not generate empirical research. When you've got published data, come back and we'll debate some more.

Corey Hammer · 10-08-2002, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Abe wrote:

Just like parenthetically to mention, in case anyone got the wrong category for me: I am an old Biologist: I am not now nor have I ever been a DUALIST! %The first & last thing I'm as sure of as I am of anything is that each human entity is ONE THING. Hope this takes care of any misapprehensions about that.
Corey I don't seem to have access to the textbooks you've referred me to; I'll keep trying, and also seek other sources. Thanks for your advice.

For the textbooks, try an academic library. They're almost sure to have them. Do you keep any academic connections?

Question then...If not referring to Cartesian dualism, to what were you referring? Are you referring to consciousness and self-awareness?

Jesse · 10-08-2002, 11:16 AM

Feather:
Why even pose the question "Why do we think?" when it cannot ever be answered so long as you insist it is outside the realm of that which is observable?

For one thing, it's an interesting philosophical question. Why should we assume that a question has to be answerable by us to be meaningful? At the same time, I'm not sure it's completely unanswerable, and the issue of consciousness is relevant to other issues I'm interested in, like the anthropic principle. Conceivably there might even be some ways to test theories of consciousness from a first-person view, involving experiments like creating copies of yourself and seeing which 'you' end up as or <a href="http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/" target="_blank">Max Tegmark's</a> idea of <a href="http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/everett_guardian.html" target="_blank">quantum suicide</a>.

Feather:
Solipsism is a waste of time. It provides no special insight or understanding of reality precisely because any "understanding" a particular line of reasoning provides cannot be tested.

I am not sure what motivated this comment--I am not a solipsist.

Feather:
You simply cannot have it both ways: either mind is physical or it is not. This is because It iisn't possible for a non-physical thing to interact with a physical one by definition.

The problem is with the unstated assumptions in what you mean by "physical." If you assume that physical processes are those that happen "in the dark" without experience, then your belief that we live in a "physical universe" is an untestable philosophical statement.

If such mindless physical processes do exist, but mental experiences also exist, as a dualist might argue, then I agree that the influence is only one-way, that although physical systems may give rise to experiences, experiences would have no effect on the physical world one way or another. I emphasized this point earlier when I said (several times) that I thought the physical world is self-contained and causally closed. This is not a very appealing point of view, though, because it suggests that experience is completely passive, and that any statements we make about having experiences are causally unrelated to the fact that we actually do have experiences.

For this reason, the most satisfactory solution seems to me to be the panpsychist view in which reality is made up of nothing but experiences, with all "physical events" just being types of experiences as viewed from the outside (just as when I interact with other people I assume that their 'outside' has a subjective 'inside' as well).

If by "physical world" you did not mean to make any assumptions about whether the world is made up of mindless stuff or mind-stuff, but only to refer to the behavior of all the stuff around us, while remaining agnostic about what that "stuff" really is, then we shouldn't have any disagreement. I do believe that this behavior can be fully understood in terms of the laws of physics, with no outside influences (whether from a world of disembodied thoughts or a world of Platonic forms).

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

Jesse · 10-08-2002, 11:21 AM

Corey, I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about science when I have said over and over again that in my opinion these matters cannot be addressed by science or settled by empirical evidence, and that they are purely philosophical. It seems to me that your opinion basically reduces to, "it's stupid to talk about or even think about any question which science cannot give the answer to." I still wonder what your opinion on the issue of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is, since all the same problems would apply to them as well.

Corey Hammer · 10-08-2002, 11:59 AM

Because Jesse, it's your opinion and only your opinion that they cannot be settled by science. You keep committing the appeal to incredulity fallacy. You offer no evidence that they cannot be. To be fair though, that would literally be trying to prove a negative.

Then you bring up qualia, for which you have no empirical support and only opinions. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the science and skepticism board, so you get science and skepticism here, not philosophy and opinion.

Jesse · 10-08-2002, 12:30 PM

Corey Hammer:
Because Jesse, it's your opinion and only your opinion that they cannot be settled by science.

Yes, I've already said it cannot be settled by science, I don't know why you keep repeating this as if it's an argument. Again, your comments would apply to the issue of interpretations of QM as well, would you be equally disgusted if someone offered an opinion on this subject?

Corey Hammer:
You keep committing the appeal to incredulity fallacy.

I tried to construct an argument to show why it would be impossible in principle to explain qualia scientifically, based on the idea that a physical world without qualia would be identical empirically to a world with them. You may disagree with this argument, but it's not simply an appeal to incredulity.

Corey Hammer:
You offer no evidence that they cannot be.

Why what cannot be?

Corey Hammer:
Then you bring up qualia, for which you have no empirical support and only opinions.

"Then" I bring up qualia? As far as I can tell my whole argument has been based on qualia/first-person experience, I don't know what earlier argument you think I was making.

Corey Hammer:
In case you hadn't noticed, this is the science and skepticism board, so you get science and skepticism here, not philosophy and opinion.

So your main objection to my opinions is just that they're not on-topic? The mind/body problem touches on both scientific and philosophical issues so it would not be 100% on-topic in either forum.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

galiel · 10-08-2002, 09:21 PM

Fascinating interview with evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker about his latest book: "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"

<a href="http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml" target="_blank">http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml</a>

Relevant to this discussion.

abe smith · 10-09-2002, 04:43 AM

> galiel: Yeh, saw that. Yeh, relevant.

>Corey: thanks agen for your info. I am indeed connected to at least 3 local academic libraries AND the Western Mass ALL-libraries regional system; not to mention [o.c.] the nationwide interlibrary-loan system.
Because going There physically is somewhat onerous, I'd like to pick-up first anything recent/relevant I might find on-line; but soon I will do the running-around....

re your qy about Descartes, I've assumed that he is no-longer *anywhere* that is useful to my purposes. (I do know a little about those much-earlier guys & their various positions.) In my relative innocence, I've assumed that (current >> 21st cent) "mind/brain"
study-category is a subset of longterm
"mind/body" study-category. If this opinion is no longer correct (>> as thinking-trees bifurcate more & more), mea culpa: and I'll try to closet while I bring myself up to speed w/ contemporary usage.

Agen, thanks for your
help; & apologies for my naivete... Cordially.

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

10-08-2002, 08:20 AM	#41
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Just like parenthetically to mention, in case anyone got the wrong category for me: I am an old Biologist: I am not now nor have I ever been a DUALIST! %The first & last thing I'm as sure of as I am of anything is that each human entity is ONE THING. Hope this takes care of any misapprehensions about that. Corey I don't seem to have access to the textbooks you've referred me to; I'll keep trying, and also seek other sources. Thanks for your advice.

10-08-2002, 09:19 AM	#42
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Jesse, I'm surprised that you have a degree in physics. I don't doubt it, nor do I doubt that it is possible. What surprises me about it is that you insist on attempting to apply a mode of thought that is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of science to the reality of things. Why even pose the question "Why do we think?" when it cannot ever be answered so long as you insist it is outside the realm of that which is observable? Solipsism is a waste of time. It provides no special insight or understanding of reality precisely because any "understanding" a particular line of reasoning provides cannot be tested. You simply cannot have it both ways: either mind is physical or it is not. This is because It iisn't possible for a non-physical thing to interact with a physical one by definition. Again, if you propose that mind is non-physical, then you cannot ever know "why" the "mind" "does" anything. The question is unanswerable, and therefore meaningless.

10-08-2002, 10:59 AM	#43
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Jesse, quite frankly, my opinion of your arguments is very, very low. They are bankrupt as far as science is concerned. You offer no evidence but your own opinions and feelings based on logical fallacies and absolutely no evidence. Science functions using methodological naturalism. I never have once said science will answer all questions, meaning about everything. Science will answer all questions thatwe can ask about the NATURAL UNIVERSE. Your vague and unsubstantiated philosophies have no meaning insofar as they do not generate empirical research. When you've got published data, come back and we'll debate some more.

10-08-2002, 11:16 AM	#45
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Feather: Why even pose the question "Why do we think?" when it cannot ever be answered so long as you insist it is outside the realm of that which is observable? For one thing, it's an interesting philosophical question. Why should we assume that a question has to be answerable by us to be meaningful? At the same time, I'm not sure it's completely unanswerable, and the issue of consciousness is relevant to other issues I'm interested in, like the anthropic principle. Conceivably there might even be some ways to test theories of consciousness from a first-person view, involving experiments like creating copies of yourself and seeing which 'you' end up as or <a href="http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/" target="_blank">Max Tegmark's</a> idea of <a href="http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/everett_guardian.html" target="_blank">quantum suicide</a>. Feather: Solipsism is a waste of time. It provides no special insight or understanding of reality precisely because any "understanding" a particular line of reasoning provides cannot be tested. I am not sure what motivated this comment--I am not a solipsist. Feather: You simply cannot have it both ways: either mind is physical or it is not. This is because It iisn't possible for a non-physical thing to interact with a physical one by definition. The problem is with the unstated assumptions in what you mean by "physical." If you assume that physical processes are those that happen "in the dark" without experience, then your belief that we live in a "physical universe" is an untestable philosophical statement. If such mindless physical processes do exist, but mental experiences also exist, as a dualist might argue, then I agree that the influence is only one-way, that although physical systems may give rise to experiences, experiences would have no effect on the physical world one way or another. I emphasized this point earlier when I said (several times) that I thought the physical world is self-contained and causally closed. This is not a very appealing point of view, though, because it suggests that experience is completely passive, and that any statements we make about having experiences are causally unrelated to the fact that we actually do have experiences. For this reason, the most satisfactory solution seems to me to be the panpsychist view in which reality is made up of nothing but experiences, with all "physical events" just being types of experiences as viewed from the outside (just as when I interact with other people I assume that their 'outside' has a subjective 'inside' as well). If by "physical world" you did not mean to make any assumptions about whether the world is made up of mindless stuff or mind-stuff, but only to refer to the behavior of all the stuff around us, while remaining agnostic about what that "stuff" really is, then we shouldn't have any disagreement. I do believe that this behavior can be fully understood in terms of the laws of physics, with no outside influences (whether from a world of disembodied thoughts or a world of Platonic forms). [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

10-08-2002, 11:21 AM	#46
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Corey, I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about science when I have said over and over again that in my opinion these matters cannot be addressed by science or settled by empirical evidence, and that they are purely philosophical. It seems to me that your opinion basically reduces to, "it's stupid to talk about or even think about any question which science cannot give the answer to." I still wonder what your opinion on the issue of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is, since all the same problems would apply to them as well.

10-08-2002, 11:59 AM	#47
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	Because Jesse, it's your opinion and only your opinion that they cannot be settled by science. You keep committing the appeal to incredulity fallacy. You offer no evidence that they cannot be. To be fair though, that would literally be trying to prove a negative. Then you bring up qualia, for which you have no empirical support and only opinions. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the science and skepticism board, so you get science and skepticism here, not philosophy and opinion.

10-08-2002, 12:30 PM	#48
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Corey Hammer: Because Jesse, it's your opinion and only your opinion that they cannot be settled by science. Yes, I've already said it cannot be settled by science, I don't know why you keep repeating this as if it's an argument. Again, your comments would apply to the issue of interpretations of QM as well, would you be equally disgusted if someone offered an opinion on this subject? Corey Hammer: You keep committing the appeal to incredulity fallacy. I tried to construct an argument to show why it would be impossible in principle to explain qualia scientifically, based on the idea that a physical world without qualia would be identical empirically to a world with them. You may disagree with this argument, but it's not simply an appeal to incredulity. Corey Hammer: You offer no evidence that they cannot be. Why what cannot be? Corey Hammer: Then you bring up qualia, for which you have no empirical support and only opinions. "Then" I bring up qualia? As far as I can tell my whole argument has been based on qualia/first-person experience, I don't know what earlier argument you think I was making. Corey Hammer: In case you hadn't noticed, this is the science and skepticism board, so you get science and skepticism here, not philosophy and opinion. So your main objection to my opinions is just that they're not on-topic? The mind/body problem touches on both scientific and philosophical issues so it would not be 100% on-topic in either forum. [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

10-08-2002, 09:21 PM	#49
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Fascinating interview with evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker about his latest book: "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" <a href="http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml" target="_blank">http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml</a> Relevant to this discussion.

10-09-2002, 04:43 AM	#50
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	> galiel: Yeh, saw that. Yeh, relevant. >Corey: thanks agen for your info. I am indeed connected to at least 3 local academic libraries AND the Western Mass ALL-libraries regional system; not to mention [o.c.] the nationwide interlibrary-loan system. Because going There physically is somewhat onerous, I'd like to pick-up first anything recent/relevant I might find on-line; but soon I will do the running-around.... re your qy about Descartes, I've assumed that he is no-longer anywhere that is useful to my purposes. (I do know a little about those much-earlier guys & their various positions.) In my relative innocence, I've assumed that (current >> 21st cent) "mind/brain" study-category is a subset of longterm "mind/body" study-category. If this opinion is no longer correct (>> as thinking-trees bifurcate more & more), mea culpa: and I'll try to closet while I bring myself up to speed w/ contemporary usage. Agen, thanks for your help; & apologies for my naivete... Cordially.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.