Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:06 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:37 pm
Lots of people think otherwise. The Jews, for example, put down the survival and existence of their whole nation as the product of a miracle. And Christians certainly would call the life, death and resurrection of Christ a miracle. And both are certainly impressive facts that have made a deep imprint on current history -- even you would have to concede that.

So it must be your determination not to accept their evidence...

Oh, Immanuel...

Sorry: not talking to you until you read one slim book. And that book, as Henry has posted, is available to you for free. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself, I can't be bothered with you.

Oh, Immanuel, how precious. “I’m not talking to you until you read a book!” What a charmingly childish retreat. It’s the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball and going home because the game didn’t go your way.

Let me make this simple for you: the burden of explaining your position doesn’t rest on me reading a book—it rests on you articulating your argument. If you can’t manage that without leaning on “read the book” like a crutch, then maybe you should sit this one out until you can explain Nagel, or whoever else you’ve put on a pedestal, in your own words.

And let’s be honest, Immanuel—this isn’t about my “informing myself.” It’s about your inability to defend your claims without deflecting. So go ahead, hide behind your "slim book" excuse. When you’re ready to step up and actually engage, we’ll be here. Until then, take your time flipping through those pages—you’ll need it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:06 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:03 pm

Oh, Immanuel...

Sorry: not talking to you until you read one slim book. And that book, as Henry has posted, is available to you for free. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself, I can't be bothered with you.

...the burden of explaining your position doesn’t rest on me reading a book...

In this case, it certainly does. I feel no further obligation to "explain" anything to you until you do.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:16 pmOf course there hasn't been anything supernatural in all of history that left any evidence behind, so most likely people had no connection to it because it didn't happen, they just thought they did. There was no sign of the divine ever. A conscience-less, pathological liar sociopath such as IC shouldn't even exist in a world under some benevolent divinity. He himself is the best refutation of the divine.

Once again, and though I am fully aware of my subjective position, I refer to my own experiential evidence which gives me a sufficient platform to understand spiritual life. I know that to say this, on this philosophical forum, is regarded very badly — supremely vulgar and backward.

But when I send up a defense of the religious mind, or specifically of Christian thought, and all that I continually refer to as ‘the metaphysical’, I refer to a great deal of material that, here likely, and today generally, people are not reading. It has been left behind. And not, in my view, with good results overall.

So in that sense, honestly speaking, my outlook is sort of backward if the trends of the present are a reference point.

The problem — it is a veritable difficulty — is that our present on-going conversation (that initiated by BigMike), which he desires to remain thoroughly physicalist, actually hinges into philosophical and also (dammit!) theological questions.

Philosophy, for you (?) and possibly for others (?) no longer concerns itself with the “unreal” domains of theological thought and conception, right? So what happens to philosophy when those types of ideas are excised from it? (That is a question unto itself). But if you think it should be emptied of those concerns, well I guess you will make your case.

I don’t think that is a good idea, however for the sheer physicalist (you? BigMike certainly) I recognize that you have no other option. The “real” for you excludes all of that — and you show genuine contempt for those with different perspectives.

I am interested, then, in what people “just thought”. But more with those who describe the experiential relationship with “the divine”. I apologize for my crude vulgarity!

Unlike you I hold IC in greater esteem. He is tremendously better prepared in a whole set of areas than the majority who post here.

However, no single person (we all have strengths and defects) can be set up as the exemplar that either proves or disproves theological theory, or the importance of the Christian revelation, or — perhaps a more philosophically-inclined position — that of the question of metaphysics.

And in any case the ideas put forth by Nagel in the book linked to above stand independently to the personal perspectives or positions of any one of us. It is best to try to extract some of those ideas that, if I read correctly, challenge that sheer physicalist position.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:43 pm Once again, and though I am fully aware of my subjective position, I refer to my own experiential evidence which gives me a sufficient platform to understand spiritual life. I know that to say this, on this philosophical forum, is regarded very badly — supremely vulgar and backward.

But when I send up a defense of the religious mind, or specifically of Christian thought, and all that I continually refer to as ‘the metaphysical’, I refer to a great deal of material that, here likely, and today generally, people are not reading. It has been left behind. And not, in my view, with good results overall.

So in that sense, honestly speaking, my outlook is sort of backward if the trends of the present are a reference point.

The problem — it is a veritable difficulty — is that our present on-going conversation (that initiated by BigMike), which he desires to remain thoroughly physicalist, actually hinges into philosophical and also (dammit!) theological questions.

Philosophy, for you (?) and possibly for others (?) no longer concerns itself with the “unreal” domains of theological thought and conception, right? So what happens to philosophy when those types of ideas are excised from it? (That is a question unto itself). But if you think it should be emptied of those concerns, well I guess you will make your case.

I don’t think that is a good idea, however for the sheer physicalist (you? BigMike certainly) I recognize that you have no other option. The “real” for you excludes all of that — and you show genuine contempt for those with different perspectives.

I am interested, then, in what people “just thought”. But more with those who describe the experiential relationship with “the divine”. I apologize for my crude vulgarity!

Unlike you I hold IC in greater esteem. He is tremendously better prepared in a whole set of areas than the majority who post here.

However, no single person (we all have strengths and defects) can be set up as the exemplar that either proves or disproves theological theory, or the importance of the Christian revelation, or — perhaps a more philosophically-inclined position — that of the question of metaphysics.

There were thousands of religions and no evidence for any of them. The only constant was the religious inclination of the human mind.

And in any case the ideas put forth by Nagel in the book linked to above stand independently to the personal perspectives or positions of any one of us. It is best to try to extract some of those ideas that, if I read correctly, challenge that sheer physicalist position.

I can guarantee that Nagel has nothing on physicalism when physicalism doesn't make the Western mental/material split. His arguments may work somewhat on a materialist like Mike, but ultimately such arguments undermine themselves too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:30 pmMy claim was that the Left is concerned about the undemocratic nature of the EU.

Well, unless by "the Left" you are referring to the specific representatives of the left who share your belief that the EU is undemocratic, you are overlooking the fact that the left is not an homogeneous bloc. If that is what you mean by "the Left", they, like you are begging the question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 4:18 pmThen I showed that they are, by reference to one of their own publications. There's no more to be said than that, because it's perfect evidence that my claim is true. You can whine about that, but it does no good.

That you think one reference to a single article should settle an argument is typical of the dilettante errors that show how little you understand philosophy. That it is an appeal to an authority (a fallacy in itself) you admit you don't believe reliable, further highlights your absurdity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 4:18 pmLots of people don't like facts.

This is another example of you projecting. Here are some facts that you clearly don't like:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:16 pmAs I have pointed out several times, the truth is that the EU Commission is nominated by the democratically elected heads of state that constitute the European Council. It is those democratically elected heads of state of the European Council who decide the political objectives of the EU. The job of the EU Commission is to formulate and implement policies that will realise the political objectives set out by the European Council. Before they get to do that, the nominated candidates for the EU Commission are vetted by the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament. Once the democratically elected Members of the European Parliament have ratified the nominations of the democratically elected heads of state of the European Council, the EU Commissioners remain accountable to the democratically elected EU Parliament.
Your characterisation of the EU Commissioners as insane ideologues is projection, so too your accusation that it is me who isn't interested in seeing the truth.

You will get no respect from anyone who knows what they are talking about, until you can admit your flaws; especially as a Christian who believes we are all flawed.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:48 am I can guarantee that Nagel has nothing on physicalism when physicalism doesn't make the Western mental/material split. His arguments may work somewhat on a materialist like Mike, but ultimately such arguments undermine themselves too.

I might not have paid sufficient attention: where have you written on your non-dual physicalism?

A few thoughts on the chapter “Consciousness” in Mind & Matter.

(Before I proceed: BigMike I apologize for describing you as a snarling opossum hanging from a limiting branch of understanding in moonlight. That was, fair to say, a bit over the top, and I wish to formally retract it. Might you fill me in as to what animal you most identify with? Surely not a burrowing rodent like in a Kafka story (?) As to your mode of locomotion (this is oftentimes a telling point) do you slither? sidle? scurry? flap? hop? swing? buzz? Any clues will be appreciated!)

I am interested in Nagel’s view of “irreducible subjectivity” and “subjective, individual points of view”. With this, we turn to examine our own selves here in these conversations.

Now, and interestingly, Mike says he has the true view. I.e. his neurons have been arranged so that his eyes and ears when they scan reality, bring back not a far-fetched interpretation, but actual, factual irreducible truth.

If I understand correctly, the only subject that could be organized by the brain’s neuronal arrangement is what is in the natural world; what is there in tangible presence.

But what of all those extraordinary arrangements of neurons involved in everything having to do with subjective states of consciousness and awareness? Think about this: technically the arrangements of neurons that build conceptual models outside and beyond the absolute tangibility of physical stuff — all of that is subjective hallucination! The sense that something means something. Completely distinct from apperception of temperature, or location, or velocity.

Among men with extremely different subjective perceptions, then, the cure for such errors, such preposterous embellishment, such phantasy structures, is to abandon them and return just to descriptions of “what is”.

This is why I say that Mike’s Modality, if applied, utterly undermines philosophical thought. Philosophy could then only take positions that reduce philosophical thought — indeed all speculative thought — to …

To what?

Consciousness then, and so many domains of human consciousness thought, if they do not confine themselves to ultra-tangible “facts”, are nonsensical pastimes and, allow me to circle back to the primary visualization, erroneous patterns arranged in neuronal material that are illusory. That are producing illusion. They must be “corrected”.

BigMike I don’t want you to feel excluded here. Come back and “drill down” into what you feel needs to be drilled down into: your percussive hammer, if a bit rattly, if a bit brutish, is valued. And since surly contemptuousness keeps your sails billowed, please! continue!

“Nagel: Conscious subjects and their mental lives are inescapable components of reality not describable by the physical sciences.”

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 1:24 pm

Alexis, your flair for dramatics is as amusing as it is misplaced. Let me correct your misrepresentation right away: I have never claimed to have the "true view." On the contrary, I’ve said repeatedly that determinism, the laws of conservation, and the four fundamental interactions are falsifiable. They are grounded in physics—science at its most robust—and they stand until someone provides even a single instance where they fail. And yet, here I am, still waiting. Why do you keep lying about that? Stop it. Please.

You, on the other hand, spin philosophical fairy tales about "irreducible subjectivity" and neuron-induced "phantasy structures," as if throwing vague abstractions into the air exempts you from the hard work of evidence or logic. Meanwhile, my position is clear: if you or anyone else can demonstrate an event that violates these foundational laws of physics, let’s see it. If not, your musings about neuronal "illusions" and "phantasy structures" are little more than intellectual shadow puppetry.

Your attempt to suggest that my perspective "undermines philosophical thought" is as baseless as it is ironic. Philosophy thrives on clarity and rigor—not the loose, whimsical ramblings that dismiss the tangible, falsifiable, and observable in favor of the poetic fog you seem to prefer. Speculation without grounding is not philosophy—it’s a pastime for those unwilling to face reality.

And let’s not forget the pièce de résistance of your comment: Nagel’s assertion that "Conscious subjects and their mental lives are inescapable components of reality not describable by the physical sciences." Nagel's skepticism of reductionism doesn’t negate the explanatory power of science—it highlights his own discomfort with the implications of material reality. If you wish to side with him, fine, but stop pretending that quoting him resolves anything. Assertions, no matter how eloquently stated, are not evidence.

So, Alexis, until you can provide evidence that falsifies determinism or the laws it rests upon, spare us the theatrics. Your word games might be entertaining, but they don’t change the fact that reality doesn’t bend to subjective narratives or philosophical indulgence. Bring substance, or let’s leave this to the adults.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm...until you can provide evidence that falsifies determinism or the laws it rests upon...

Well, there's Bell's Theorum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 11:35 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:48 am I can guarantee that Nagel has nothing on physicalism when physicalism doesn't make the Western mental/material split. His arguments may work somewhat on a materialist like Mike, but ultimately such arguments undermine themselves too.

I might not have paid sufficient attention: where have you written on your non-dual physicalism?

Physicalism is inherently non-dual, unless we interpret it through dualism which almost everyone does (philosophers, scientists, laymen, everyone). You can try any argument of Nagel on me or any materialist argument even and I'll show it wrong.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm Meanwhile, my position is clear: if you or anyone else can demonstrate an event that violates these foundational laws of physics, let’s see it.

My freedom, my conscious awareness, my self as a conceiving being, my choice as its own cause, my capability to act as a causal agent — all of this obviously occurs. It happens. It is part-and-parcel of the world as it is (the cosmos, the manifestation). And therefore or perhaps notwithstanding no “laws of physics” are violated.

I am a law-abiding intellect I’ll have you know.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:11 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm...until you can provide evidence that falsifies determinism or the laws it rests upon...

Well, there's Bell's Theorum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Bell's Theorem doesn’t falsify determinism; it challenges local realism in quantum mechanics, showing that particles can be correlated in ways classical physics can't explain without invoking non-locality. Determinism at the quantum level is a different debate, and interpretations like Bohmian mechanics remain deterministic. The conservation laws and causal interactions I reference remain intact regardless.

Once a creature (man in our case) moves into a certain level of conceptual consciousness — let’s take this as an eventuality necessary in the cosmos and what the cosmos tends to — what rôle and purpose does this level of conceptual consciousness then have for 1) the cosmos within, say, its machinations, and 2) for that conscious awareness being?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:17 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 2:37 pm Meanwhile, my position is clear: if you or anyone else can demonstrate an event that violates these foundational laws of physics, let’s see it.

My freedom, my conscious awareness, my self as a conceiving being, my choice as its own cause, my capability to act as a causal agent — all of this obviously occurs. It happens. It is part-and-parcel of the world as it is (the cosmos, the manifestation). And therefore or perhaps notwithstanding no “laws of physics” are violated.

I am a law-abiding intellect I’ll have you know.

Ah, Alexis, your poetic musings are charming, but they bring us back to an age-old philosophical misunderstanding. Descartes famously said, "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I am." However, a more precise formulation, as you've hinted, might be: "I think, therefore I think that I am." This highlights that your sense of "self," your freedom, and your conscious awareness are products of thought—a process that is entirely compatible with the deterministic laws governing the physical world.

Your ability to perceive yourself as a "causal agent" doesn't violate any physical laws; it’s an emergent property of your brain’s deterministic processes. Just as the laws of physics don’t stop a storm from feeling chaotic to an observer, they don’t stop your consciousness from feeling "free" while being causally determined.

Your "law-abiding intellect" is noted—but your freedom and choices, no matter how real they feel, still follow the unbroken chain of cause and effect dictated by the very laws you claim to abide by. The beauty of determinism is that it doesn’t diminish these experiences; it explains them.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 3:36 pm Physicalism is inherently non-dual, unless we interpret it through dualism which almost everyone does (philosophers, scientists, laymen, everyone). You can try any argument of Nagel on me or any materialist argument even and I'll show it wrong.

Oh God, Oh God!

Two possums stranded on a limiting conceptual branch flooded with moonlight

Physicalism is inherently non-dual

That’s plain enough. Whether in moonlight, starlight, bright sunlight or sheer darkness.