Philosophy Now Forum

People can waste a few years on nonsense ideas: non-existent or metaphorical mind, non-physical or abstract mind. Or people can choose to skip this whole part.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 2:54 pm Don't we have and express thoughts - sometimes by means of sentences?

Sure, I have thoughts and express some of them. And the unexpressed thoughts?

What I find strange and revealing is the baffled reaction to the blindingly obvious observation that there is no reason to think that what we call the mind, containing so-called mental things and events, is a non-physical thing.

I haven't take a stand on that, especially since I think the term physical, and thus the term non-physical, has no stable meaning.

But again, why not call them sentences? What are these thoughts you are referring to?

Iow, unless you are willing to claim that there are indeed abstract or non-physical things, such as minds and mental things and events - then you agree with me.

You've said things like this...

Premise: There are mental faculties [?] which are responsible for mental phenomena [?]
Conclusion: Therefore, there are minds.

Question-begging or what?

And a question: are minds, supposedly consisting of mental faculties - and the mental phenomena for which these faculties are supposedly responsible - physical or non-physical things?

If they're physical, what and where are they? And if they're non-physical, what and where are they, and by what causal mechanism do they affect physical things?

Since it seems like you are skeptical that what we refer to as mind is physical and seem skeptical that it is non-physical it seems like you are skeptical that mind exists. I think at times you have reacted to the use of terms like 'mind' and 'mental phenomena'. But to me
'thoughts' is a term that fits in the same category. So, I asked why not say sentences?

It seems like you object to even referring to such phenomena at all. Is it only the large category terms, or does it include words like 'thoughts'? I'm trying to understand your position.

Me, I'm a pragmatist who is extremely skeptical about substance claims, whether monist or dualist. Not just claims about how many and what it is/they are, but also what is and is not possible around substances.

I find the use of terms both at the general batch level (mind, mental phenomena) and at the specific level (dream, mental image, memory, desire, thought, thinking, and so on) very useful.

I don't feel any need to demonstrate that abstract things exist or some kind of dualism, or non-materialist monism. As far as I can tell those may be useful models in certain situations but I remain unconvinced the terms mean much at root.

Legacy religious claptrap that's been around for a long time is still claptrap.

This seems to be a response to an argument I didn't make. Like, we've used these terms since ancient greece so they must refer to something. But I haven't made that argument.

Happy to have that argument - about the supposed existence of abstract or non-physical things - but the bop is with claimants, and unmet so far, to my knowledge.

I gotta say this seems like shifting the onus. I'm asking you why you get to use the word thoughts when mental phenomena and minds are religious claptrap. I am also trying to figure out what you would mean if you said something like 'I just remembered a dream I had last night'. If you ever say such things, what would that mean to you?

Irritated interlocutor: 'Ah - but you agree that we have and can express thoughts?! Gotcha!'

But why do you think those thoughts are abstract or non-physical things?

Well, if we're going to mindread, my reaction was more bemused and confused. It seemed like you specifically objected to the use of words that had to do with mental faculties and minds, but then you used one yourself. So, sure, there was a bit of a gotcha, but mainly I'm puzzeled (puzzled is another word that refers to a subjective, qualia (some would describe it as) saturated experience. I didn't check my endocrine system and pulse and EEG and saw puzzled patterns. I was puzzled. When I am puzzled I often question someone about what puzzled me. I wasn't particularly irritated or religious when doing this.

Irritated interlocutor: 'Okay. Show us a physical thought.'

Der. Never said I could

You realize you are putting words in my mouth, right. I am pretty sure I've mentioned to you before more than once, that I don't think the word 'physical' is meaningful.

I am trying to figure out what you are talking about. I'm familiar with a variety of materialisms (including eliminative) or physicalisms. I don't really know where you fall in those, if you do. I think some of these positions are very problematic. Others less so. They seem to present a variety of positions. I don't know which if any is yours. I see what seem to be contradictions in your relation to your language and other people's language, even in your response to me above. So, I have asked some questions. I also wonder what these people actually mean and how they live on a more general level. Not that they can't live or they must be different. But I wonder what they think they mean when they say many things.

- or anyone can. All we can see are electrochemical events in brains - and maybe other physiological processes.

The myth of abstract or non-physical things is ancient, potent and pervasive. Witness the outrage when it's challenged and exposed for what it is. It's like atheism for a theist.

OK; here's a little challenge for you.

Read my posts to you on this issue.
Then read your response here.
Let me know which of us you think shows more signs of being 'outraged.'
And if it is that easy for you to guage what is going on in my mind or brain, what conclusions can I draw about your need for your position?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:39 am Some thoughts in response to one or other of VA's shot gun posts.

Did the big bang occur only because there is cosmology? Does no cosmology = no big bang?

Is water H2O only because there is chemistry? Does no chemistry = water is not H2O?

Are there neurons only because there is neuroscience? Does no neuroscience = no neurons?

I trust everyone can see where VA goes wrong, even if he can't. Though he denies it, his premise is that a fact is a description - and that, since all descriptions are contextual and conventional, facts are contextual and conventional - or 'conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge'.

Conclusion?: No chemistry = no chemical facts, such as that water is H2O.

The mind-warp required to believe this nonsense came (at least in VA's case) from Kant - possibly misinterpreted. But more modern variants of the delusion include constructivism, model-dependent realism, and Derrida's invention of logocentrism: 'there is nothing outside the text'.

These increasingly outmoded 'anti-realist' fashions all have to straw man realism with some sort of correspondence theory charge.

There is no independent objective fact in your version, which is illusory.
Your arrogance is based on your delusional confidence.

Note I have argued here;

"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

While scientifically and generally 'water is H2O' it cannot be an absolute statement;
you cannot claim 'water is H2O' because your father or mother said so, but rather must it be qualified to the human-based science-chemistry FSK.

In the OP I quoted above,
in a more rigoristic perspective, some scientists do not even accept "Water is Not H20" [it is not sufficiently realistic] due to the existence of isomers of hydrogen and oxygen.

Therefore,
no human-based science chemistry FSK = no human based fact that 'water is H2O'

I trust everyone can see where VA goes wrong, even if he can't.

Anyone dispute my claims above?
If yes, provide your sound arguments.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:47 am Elsewhere, VA asks the following gotcha question.

'PH: If you agree with W[ittgenstein]'s 'meaning is use' how come you are rejecting the
meaning of 'mind' as used within the various FSKs I have mentioned? i.e. neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, mental health, nutrition, etc. and other FSKs.'

We also use the words fairy, ghost, goblin, devil, angel and god. Does that mean those things exist?

Face palm.

Strawman!!

You are the one who insisted 'meaning is use' as asserted by Wittgenstein.
How come you are backing out?

We also use the words fairy, ghost, goblin, devil, angel and god.
Does that mean those things exist?

When people use the words fairy, ghost, goblin, devil, angel and god, they idealized their meaning and existence specific to their human-based FSKs.

For example, when theists use the term 'God' they idealized the meaning and existence of God specific to their human-based theistic FSK.
There is no denying there is relative meaning by the use of the term 'God' for it has great utilities [salvific and psychological] for the >7 billion theists at present and in the past.

The question is whether human-based theistic FSKs [faith-based] is reliable, credible or objective in contrast to the human-based-scientific FSK [empirical-based].

In the case of 'mind' there is meaning to the term 'mind' based on its use [Wittgenstein] within its specific human-based FSKs e.g. neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science, mental health, nutrition, etc. and other FSKs.'
Do you deny the term 'mind' has not been useful at all based on its use within the above FSKs?

Your simply brushing off the claims above merely reflect your ignorance and philosophical immaturity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 3:07 pm Pending evidence for the existence of non-physical things, belief in their existence is irrational. So-called abstract or non-physical things are remarkably like supernatural things. Defend the faith!

You are so philosophical immature!
You are stuck with Platonic abstracts, forms, universals that exist as real independent entities independent of the human conditions.
This is the basis for supernatural things like God, independent souls. etc.

While you deny Plato's universals, you are ignorant your fact [human-independent], i.e. feature of reality 'that is' 'just-is' being-so, and that is the case that exists beyond linguistic meanings is equivalent to Plato's universals and abstracts.

At present, the philosophically matured thinking is, whatever the universals they are conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK, i.e. not absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There are nevertheless objective in the sense, they are independent of individual[s] subjective opinion, beliefs and judgment, .e.g. your father's, mother's or your personal opinions.
Because these universals or abstract things are FSK-objective and conditioned upon a human-based FSK, they have the high potential to be very useful for the progress of humanity, e.g. scientific facts conditioned upon the human-based scientific-FSK.

Here's a fallacy from elsewhere.

Premise: What we call facts are social constructions.
Conclusion: Therefore, we can construct moral facts.

The premise is false. Agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts.

For example, the chemical constitution of water is not constituted by agreement on the use of signs in the factual assertion water is H2O. And, for example, agreement on the use of signs in the factual assertion there are pink unicorns on the moon would not constitute a fact.

This false premise informs - and demolishes - VA's and the dick's arguments for moral objectivity. And the moral opinion at the heart of their and many other arguments for moral objectivity is evident in the following, again from elsewhere.

'...without objective morals/social norms literaly [sic] anything goes.'

Simply - without social norms, anything goes. And it's a matter of opinion that 'anything goes' is morally wrong - one demonstration of the subjectivity of morality. Moral objectivists have nothing to show that that moral opinion is a fact, which is why they don't and can't recognise it as an opinion.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:02 am Here's a fallacy from elsewhere.

Premise: What we call facts are social constructions.
Conclusion: Therefore, we can construct moral facts.

The premise is false.

No it's not.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:02 am Agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts.

An greement on the rules of chess results in facts being constructed about the rules of chess, but an agreement on the use of signs doesn't result in facts being constructed about the use of signs.

Gotcha.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes strikes again.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:02 am Here's a fallacy from elsewhere.

Premise: What we call facts are social constructions.
Conclusion: Therefore, we can construct moral facts.

The premise is false. Agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts.

For example, the chemical constitution of water is not constituted by agreement on the use of signs in the factual assertion water is H2O. And, for example, agreement on the use of signs in the factual assertion there are pink unicorns on the moon would not constitute a fact.

This false premise informs - and demolishes - VA's and the dick's arguments for moral objectivity. And the moral opinion at the heart of their and many other arguments for moral objectivity is evident in the following, again from elsewhere.

'...without objective morals/social norms literaly [sic] anything goes.'

Simply - without social norms, anything goes. And it's a matter of opinion that 'anything goes' is morally wrong - one demonstration of the subjectivity of morality. Moral objectivists have nothing to show that that moral opinion is a fact, which is why they don't and can't recognise it as an opinion.

You ignored my arguments:
viewtopic.php?p=642475#p642475

"Water is Not H20"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39844

"Water is H2O" is an Abstraction
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39876

While scientifically and generally 'water is H2O' it cannot be an absolute statement;
you cannot claim 'water is H2O' because your father or mother said so, but rather must it be qualified to the human-based science-chemistry FSK.

In the OP I quoted above,
in a more rigoristic perspective, some scientists do not even accept "Water is Not H20" [it is not sufficiently realistic] due to the existence of isomers of hydrogen and oxygen.

Therefore,
no human-based science chemistry FSK = no human based fact that 'water is H2O'

Don't be a coward!
What is your counter to the above?

Premise: What we call facts are social constructions.
Conclusion: Therefore, we can construct moral facts.
The premise is false. Agreement on the use of signs does not constitute what we call facts.

Strawman!
I have never argued 'we can construct moral facts'.

The main point I brought up with "Constructivism" is its anti-philosophical realism, i.e.
all facts are conditioned upon a human based FSK.

You argued,
all facts are independent of the human conditions. [this is illusory]
all moral elements are not independent of the human conditions.
therefore, there cannot be any moral facts that is independent of the human conditions.

As I had highlighted, Constructivism, postulates;
ALL facts are conditioned upon a human based FSK.
thus there are moral facts as conditioned upon a human based FSK.

I never claim
'we can construct moral facts' in your sense re philosophical realism.

You are desperate and stupid in thinking I am making the following claim;
"moral opinion is a fact"
show me evidence, who in the philosophical community ever make such a claim?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:17 am I have never argued 'we can construct moral facts'.

I did. We can and do construct facts. This includes moral facts.

Here's a constructed fact: Today is the 17th May 2023
Here's a constructed moral fact: Murder is wrong.

The end.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:17 am I have never argued 'we can construct moral facts'.

I did. We can and do construct facts. This includes moral facts.

Here's a constructed fact: Today is the 17th May 2023 (According to the FSK we call The Gregorian Calendar)
Here's a constructed moral fact: Murder is wrong.

The end.

I did not argue for it in this particular case but it is definitely possible.
If I construct chair, I have constructed a fact.
Elsewhere I argued 'humans are co-creators of the reality they are part and parcel of' which in a subtler way will include moral facts, but I am not focusing on it.
Re Chaos Theory, when I coughed I could have contributed to and constructed a hurricane in Florida.

Agreement on the rules of chess is necessary for people to be able to play chess. That people can 'construct facts about the rules of chess' is a peculiar way of putting it. More simply: there are facts about the rules of chess.

Agreement on the use of signs is necessary for communication. That people can 'construct facts about the use of signs' is a peculiar way of putting it. More simply: there are facts about the use of signs.

But agreement on the use of signs in assertions does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity.

It just doesn't. Agreement on the use of signs - and facts about that use of signs - in the assertion water is H2O do not constitute the chemical make-up of water - the fact of the matter.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 11:53 am Agreement on the rules of chess is necessary for people to be able to play chess.

Disagree with the rules of chess; or refuse to play all you want.

Those are the rules. As invented.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 11:53 am That people can 'construct facts about the rules of chess' is a peculiar way of putting it. More simply: there are facts about the rules of chess.

What's confusing you?

There were no facts about chess before we invented chess.
There were no facts about morality before we invented morality.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 11:53 am Agreement on the use of signs is necessary for communication.

That's not true. Two people lacking a shared language and shared use of signs can and do develop one via communication.

Gesture/point at something. Say the word "Horse".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 11:53 am Agreement on the rules of chess is necessary for people to be able to play chess. That people can 'construct facts about the rules of chess' is a peculiar way of putting it. More simply: there are facts about the rules of chess.

Agreement on the use of signs is necessary for communication. That people can 'construct facts about the use of signs' is a peculiar way of putting it. More simply: there are facts about the use of signs.

But agreement on the use of signs in assertions does not constitute what we call facts and, therefore, objectivity.

It just doesn't. Agreement on the use of signs - and facts about that use of signs - in the assertion water is H2O do not constitute the chemical make-up of water - the fact of the matter.

As I had stated your 'what is fact' is grounded [in the ultimate sense] on a delusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

You claimed 'what is fact' is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

You stated above,
'the fact of the matter = the chemical make-up of water'
but what is chemical make-up can only exists when conditioned upon the human-based science-chemistry FSK which is NOT independent of the human conditions.
therefore 'the fact of the matter' in this case cannot be absolutely independent of the human conditions.

VA, you say that, as sources of knowledge, the natural sciences have the highest credibility. So, how do you think they achieve this? What do natural scientists do to prove (in other words test) their conclusions - to see if they have discovered 'the fact of the matter'? Are chemists deluded if they think water is H2O? Is what they believe an illusion?

How about answering those questions directly? For example, you could say: 'Yes, if chemists think water is H2O, they are deluded.' Or: 'Natural scientists can never discover 'the fact of the matter', because there's no such thing - it's an illusion.'

But then, whence the credibility of natural science?

Why not let these ideas penetrate the self-defensive density of your concoction?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 6:06 am VA, you say that, as sources of knowledge, the natural sciences have the highest credibility. So, how do you think they achieve this? What do natural scientists do to prove (in other words test) their conclusions - to see if they have discovered 'the fact of the matter'? Are chemists deluded if they think water is H2O? Is what they believe an illusion?

How about answering those questions directly? For example, you could say: 'Yes, if chemists think water is H2O, they are deluded.' Or: 'Natural scientists can never discover 'the fact of the matter', because there's no such thing - it's an illusion.'

But then, whence the credibility of natural science?

Why not let these ideas penetrate the self-defensive density of your concoction?

Why the Natural Science-FSK has the highest credibility is not because it has discovered what you defined as 'fact' or "fact of the matter".
Your 'what is fact' or "fact of the matter" is illusory.
As such natural scientists will never discover your 'what is fact' and 'the fact of the matter'.

Note this;
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585
depend on the various criteria as listed therein.

The scientific FSK has accepted many 'scientific facts' and discarded them thereafter when new evidences proved otherwise.

Whatever natural scientists discover as scientific facts must be conditioned upon the human-based scientific FSK.
What are scientific facts are true as long as they satisfy the conditions and requirements of the human-based scientific FSK.

No true scientists will claim their human-based FSK scientific facts are the absolute independent fact and the-matter of fact.

Scientists are deluded if they insist 'water is H20' in the absolute independent sense without any qualification to the scientific FSK.

Note I have stated, at present most scientists do no accept the statement 'water is H20' because they know this statement is not highly true. In this case, it would be insulting to their intelligence to insist 'water is H20'.

Note this thread;
PH: The Fact of the Matter; or Delusion
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40081
Prove to me, the fact of the matter exists as real?