Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

...I would say that we have good reasons to reject Idealism. It's both counterintuitive and self-defeating.

You can call it good, but counterintuitive is not a sound reason for rejecting anything.

It's a good prima facie reason for settling the burden of proof. And what about self-defeating? How do you regard that as a "sound reason for rejecting Idealism"?

As I was saying, it assumes the existence of some external "stimulation" of an undefined nature...

What makes you think so?

Because if it doesn't, then it's merely a mysticism.

It doesn't make Idealism true, or even render it plausible. For we still have the problem of the sense-impressions existing at all...for absent any external reality, and absent even a thinker to think them, there's no reason they should exist. And we're to utter Nihilism...which, ironically, there's no "thinker" even left to believe.

Again, I am not arguing that idealism is true, but if you can't accept it as a logical possibility,...

Consider it? Sure. Understand it? Sure. Believe it? That's a totally different question.

You have my attention.

Well, thank you for that, anyway. Conversation is always a gift.

[Will Bouwman]

...I would say that we have good reasons to reject Idealism. It's both counterintuitive and self-defeating.

You can call it good, but counterintuitive is not a sound reason for rejecting anything.

It's a good prima facie reason for settling the burden of proof.

Knock yourself out. Anyone schooled in philosophy knows perfectly well that trying to prove either idealism or materialism is pissing into the wind. They are unfalsifiable and underdetermined.

And what about self-defeating? How do you regard that as a "sound reason for rejecting Idealism"?

It would be if anyone could show that idealism is self defeating.

As I was saying, it assumes the existence of some external "stimulation" of an undefined nature...

What makes you think so?

Because if it doesn't, then it's merely a mysticism.

Does it follow that it is therefore untrue?

It doesn't make Idealism true, or even render it plausible. For we still have the problem of the sense-impressions existing at all...for absent any external reality, and absent even a thinker to think them, there's no reason they should exist. And we're to utter Nihilism...which, ironically, there's no "thinker" even left to believe.

Again, I am not arguing that idealism is true, but if you can't accept it as a logical possibility,...

Consider it? Sure. Understand it? Sure. Believe it? That's a totally different question.

I don't expect you to believe it, I already know you're a dualist. That is a choice you have made for essentially aesthetic reasons, but you can no more prove it than materialists or idealists can prove their positions. You cannot understand western philosophy until you understand that simple fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone schooled in philosophy knows perfectly well that trying to prove either idealism or materialism is pissing into the wind.

That's what I've been saying. Physicalism isn't a default, and it's not even intuitively plausible, given how you and I do business every day. It's got nothing going for it, proof-wise. It's just a presumption.

And what about self-defeating? How do you regard that as a "sound reason for rejecting Idealism"?

It would be if anyone could show that idealism is self defeating.

I was suggesting how. If we say that everything is merely an "idea," and yet there's a physical reality that's its opposite, then we've affirmed ontological realism, even while insisting on epistemological idealism. If we don't believe there's any reality that's the counterpart of the idea, then we're simply mystics, not Idealists.

What makes you think so?

Because if it doesn't, then it's merely a mysticism.

Does it follow that it is therefore untrue?

It would follow that there's no possibility of "true" being a predicate of anything at all. There would ONLY be hallucinations-of-the-idea, not anything that refers to a reality, however imperfectly.

I already know you're a dualist. That is a choice you have made for essentially aesthetic reasons,...

You don't know my reasons. I would argue that I think the various monisms don't account well for reality. I think it's a rational objection, certainly not an aesthetic one. I don't actually have any aesthetic feeling about it. And we can agree that "aesthetics" is the wrong motive for belief.

[Will Bouwman]

Anyone schooled in philosophy knows perfectly well that trying to prove either idealism or materialism is pissing into the wind.

That's what I've been saying. Physicalism isn't a default, and it's not even intuitively plausible, given how you and I do business every day.

It's not what I'm saying. Again your intuition is subjective, only you intuit what you intuit, and what we do has no bearing on what there is.

It's got nothing going for it, proof-wise.

Proof is for logic and mathematics, both of which are axiomatic. You take some presumption, slot it into a formula and prove a consequence. Some people, lacking wit or education, are apt to conclude that such a proof means the consequence is true.

It's just a presumption.

Yes, as are idealism and dualism.

It would be if anyone could show that idealism is self defeating.

I was suggesting how. If we say that everything is merely an "idea," and yet there's a physical reality that's its opposite...

In which case we are not saying that everything is an idea.

If we don't believe there's any reality that's the counterpart of the idea, then we're simply mystics, not Idealists.

Call them mystics if you will, but that is what some idealists have argued.

I already know you're a dualist. That is a choice you have made for essentially aesthetic reasons,...

You don't know my reasons. I would argue that I think the various monisms don't account well for reality.

Go for it!

I think it's a rational objection, certainly not an aesthetic one. I don't actually have any aesthetic feeling about it. And we can agree that "aesthetics" is the wrong motive for belief.

I'm not suggesting that aesthetics is a right motive, but when it comes to deciding between competing ideas that are equally well supported by the same evidence, like physicalism, idealism and dualism, our choice comes down to which we like best. Again, the bit you cut off and clearly want to ignore:

You cannot understand western philosophy until you understand that simple fact.

[Immanuel Can]

It's got nothing going for it, proof-wise.

Proof is for logic and mathematics, both of which are axiomatic.

Yes, yes...of course. But I was using the word informally, and you know what I mean. Physicalism presents itself as the default. It's not. Any default has to have at least prima facie plausibility, which Physicalism lacks because it's got no evidence or demonstration.

It would be if anyone could show that idealism is self defeating.

I was suggesting how. If we say that everything is merely an "idea," and yet there's a physical reality that's its opposite...

In which case we are not saying that everything is an idea.

You're not getting it, Will. If everything is an idea, then nothing is an idea. The term "idea" ceases to have any meaning. The only way it can signify something is by having something called "reality" to counterpoise to it. So the idea of reality is always implicit in any invocation of Idealism.

If we don't believe there's any reality that's the counterpart of the idea, then we're simply mystics, not Idealists.

Call them mystics if you will, but that is what some idealists have argued.

Mystics, then. And again, they've got no evidence, just like the Physicalists. Except they're one step worse, because self-defeating, for tacitly affirming reality.

I already know you're a dualist. That is a choice you have made for essentially aesthetic reasons,...

You don't know my reasons. I would argue that I think the various monisms don't account well for reality.

Go for it!

I've been doing it. Physicalism is a monism. So is Idealism.

[Will Bouwman]

Physicalism presents itself as the default. It's not. Any default has to have at least prima facie plausibility, which Physicalism lacks because it's got no evidence or demonstration.

I'll say it again: if you don't understand that the evidence for physicalism is exactly the same as for idealism and dualism, you cannot understand western philosophy. Nothing follows with logical necessity from the logically necessary 'phenomena exist'.

If we say that everything is merely an "idea," and yet there's a physical reality that's its opposite...

In which case we are not saying that everything is an idea.

You're not getting it, Will. If everything is an idea, then nothing is an idea. The term "idea" ceases to have any meaning. The only way it can signify something is by having something called "reality" to counterpoise to it. So the idea of reality is always implicit in any invocation of Idealism.

This is worst kind of analytic philosophy; it's just word salad. The word idea, in this instance, can be replaced with phenomenon, hence idealism becomes phenomenalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism

I would argue that I think the various monisms don't account well for reality.

Go for it!

I've been doing it. Physicalism is a monism. So is Idealism.

So your argument for "monisms don't account well for reality" is "Physicalism is a monism. So is Idealism."

[Immanuel Can]

Physicalism presents itself as the default. It's not. Any default has to have at least prima facie plausibility, which Physicalism lacks because it's got no evidence or demonstration.

I'll say it again: if you don't understand that the evidence for physicalism is exactly the same as for idealism and dualism, you cannot understand western philosophy.

That's cute, but not true.

Evidence for dualism of some sort certainly exists, and is available experientially to all of us -- we all live, every day, and you live right now, as if some kind of dualism is true. Here you are, talking to me, as if your mind can initiate a causal change by which mine, or those of our interlocutors, can be changed and convinced. You're not acting like all the physical preconditions of the limits of our intellection are preset, but that they can be changed and result in changes. So your own actions are evidence of your inability to live within the terms implied by monist thinking. That's evidence.

No such evidence for Idealism or Physicalism exists.

In which case we are not saying that everything is an idea.

You're not getting it, Will. If everything is an idea, then nothing is an idea. The term "idea" ceases to have any meaning. The only way it can signify something is by having something called "reality" to counterpoise to it. So the idea of reality is always implicit in any invocation of Idealism.

This is worst kind of analytic philosophy; it's just word salad.

Analytic philosophy has its place; but it's not being invoked here. What's being invoked is logic, not analytics. And it is not logical to attribute to anything a word that describes absolutely everything without exception. It is devoid of meaning.

So your argument for "monisms don't account well for reality" is "Physicalism is a monism. So is Idealism."

That's what you understand? Okay, if you say so, Will...but it's not my argument, and I haven't made it. It looks to me like your own reductio. Whether or not you're being ingenuous in evincing not to understand the real argument...well, that's not for me to say. However, a much better argument than that is being made here.

[Will Bouwman]

...we all live, every day, and you live right now, as if some kind of dualism is true.

How would we live differently if some kind of dualism were not true?

[Immanuel Can]

...we all live, every day, and you live right now, as if some kind of dualism is true.

How would we live differently if some kind of dualism were not true?

Like Physicalism?

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all. For then, my opinion at any given moment would always be 100% the product of prior physical causes, not of rational beliefs of any kind; and your arguments would not be because of some abstract quality like "truthfulness," or issuing from some "understanding" you had, but rather a pure product of your own prior physical causes. There'd be no argument to be had, none possible to be believed, and no difference between a "good" and "bad" argument. For everything, including all arguments, would be nothing other than the product of prior physical causes -- not of non-physical things like reasons, understandings, insights, logic, assessments, beliefs, or even opinions. The total explanation for the existence of any such would simply be "prior physical causes made it what was."

And if the state our brains is merely the product of "prior physical causes," why should we believe our brains, or the deliverances thereof? Have we some assurance in advance that physical causes can only produce true beliefs? Where did we get that assurance from?

Physicalism, then, stultifies all intellection, including all science.

[henry quirk]

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all.

He and you and me and she and him and... none of us would exist. *No doubt there's still be lions, tigers and bears (bio-automata) but there's be no persons.




*considerable doubt, actually...can't even have robots without an engineer

[Immanuel Can]

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all.

He and you and me and she and him and... none of us would exist. *No doubt there's still be lions, tigers and bears (bio-automata) but there's be no persons.




*considerable doubt, actually...can't even have robots without an engineer

Right. That's true, too.

[Will Bouwman]

...we all live, every day, and you live right now, as if some kind of dualism is true.

How would we live differently if some kind of dualism were not true?

Like Physicalism?

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all. For then, my opinion at any given moment would always be 100% the product of prior physical causes, not of rational beliefs of any kind...

How would your opinion be different?

Have we some assurance in advance that physical causes can only produce true beliefs?

The only assurance we have is that however we come by our beliefs, there is no guarantee of truth.

[Will Bouwman]

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all.

He and you and me and she and him and... none of us would exist.

Why not?

[FlashDangerpants]

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all.

He and you and me and she and him and... none of us would exist. *No doubt there's still be lions, tigers and bears (bio-automata) but there's be no persons.




*considerable doubt, actually...can't even have robots without an engineer

Your boy Mannie is failing a basic test of competence to see if he is capable of walking before he runs, to have his chearleader standing at the finish line shouting "run" isn't helping him in the way you think.

What he actually needed to grasp at the beginning was that idealism, physicalism, and dualism are all putative explanations for how the world is and how it presents itself to us, and so the way in which the world presents itself to us counts as prima facie evidence for each of them equally.

[Immanuel Can]

How would we live differently if some kind of dualism were not true?

Like Physicalism?

You wouldn't be arguing with me, or arguing at all. For then, my opinion at any given moment would always be 100% the product of prior physical causes, not of rational beliefs of any kind...

How would your opinion be different?

Given Physicalism, there is actually no "opinion," and it can't be "different" from whatever it is. It's predetermined by the physical causes, and cannot be the product of non-physical things like rational persuasion, or recognition of evidence, or understanding of demonstration, or whatever. Those can only be stations through which the causal train flew without stopping or picking up anything.

Have we some assurance in advance that physical causes can only produce true beliefs?

The only assurance we have is that however we come by our beliefs, there is no guarantee of truth.

It's not even a case of "guarantee," as if we have some rationale to suppose that any of our beliefs are ever keyed to favour truth at all. Rather, all beliefs are nothing more than the product of physical causes that are utterly unconcerned about truth or falsehood either way. That turns everything...even the hardest of the sciences, into nothing more than a crap-shoot: if the scientist happened to fall into the right physical pre-conditions for a true belief, he got one; if he didn't, he didn't...but because error is much easier than truth, the chances were stacked against the belief being true, and if it was, it was only an accident that it was. In fact "true" becomes nothing more than a synonym for "accidental." As for reasoning, evidence, proof, demonstration...all had nothing whatsoever to do with which physical preconditions were in play, making it possible for the scientist to believe or disbelieve whatever he concluded.

What I'm trying to make clear to you, Will, is that you've dismissed the faculty which is supposed to mediate this. Beliefs, in my view, start with impressions or ideas or physical options we have, and then are processed by the mind for plausibility, rationality, validity, relation to intended goals, and so forth. The belief and then the behaviour that ensues is the product of our options being "filtered" in this way, so to speak, though a consciousness held by a person with a specific identity and wishes, aiming at a personal choice. Mind, person, choice, freedom, will, identity, volition, reasoning, reaction, goals...all these are a location of the instigation of consequent causal chains. They are responding to the range of options available within the noted physical limitations, but they are not predetermined by them.

And that's exactly how we all live: as if, when we choose something, there's actually a "we" who is making a "choice" which will change the outcome of what happens in the world, within the limits of our physical powers. Nobody lives as if he/she decides nothing, fatalistically resigned to whatever outcomes the physical-causal chains happen to cough up. But that's what Physicalism would suggest we should do...if Physicalism were true.

But mind, choice, volition, reason, science, will, consciousness, inclination, personhood, identity, logic... are all things that Physicalism would reduce to nothing but byproducts of physical pre-causes, without any actual contribution to make to the final belief.

Against this, I'd suggest that our beliefs and choices are mediated by mind...which Physicalists would have to call "only brain responding to physical signals induced by non-cognitive causes," and could not regard as a real determiner of anything at all, without thereby ceasing to be rationally-consistent Physicalists.