Philosophy Now Forum

...cuz I ain't got the will or time to keep tip toeing and dancing for pages and pages.

Mannie, bahman: your fundamental position is 'matter, and the interplay of matter' cannot explain 'mind', yes?

If so, *well and fine.

I can only assume, if matter, and the interplay of matter, is not sufficient to explain 'mind', that you both believe 'mind' is just 'soul' misspelled, which, again, is well and fine.

Now, as I self-examine and - interrogate, I find myself to be only 'meat'...walkin', talkin', thinkin' meat...a real person who is friggin' fed up bein' told he doesn't exist, or that he's obligated (cuz he sees only materials) to deny he exists (gonna bust somebody in the head if that keeps up). You two would have me accept that I am actually ether in a meat car.

Seems to me, that requires a little evidence, which I'll happily inspect as soon as either of you (or any one) ponies it up.










*What's not so well and fine is the insistence by you both that all materialists are somehow dishonest, or taking a 'faith position', or -- if one is a materialist -- one obviously denies or ignores (or is somehow obligated to deny or ignore) 'mind'.

I don't know you, bahman, from a hole in the wall, but, Mannie, I think I know you a little. You're my buddy, but you've pulled the same stunt with atheists (lumping 'em into one basket, ascribin' motvation and intent, and ignoring when some one [like me] steps up and objects to being painted with a broad brush).

You're doin' me, and yourself, a disservice.

Terrapin Station wrote:If you're going to hinge an argument on the idea of explanations, why would you shy away from giving the criteria you require for something to count as an explanation?

I don't. I'm asking for yours, for this particular question. And I eagerly await.

You're launching into a distraction, a general discussion of "explanation"-as-theory, or modes of explanation, to avoid providing the very one your argument needs.

Not fooled. Sorry.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm asking for yours

Why? I'm not hinging any argument on the idea of explanations, and I already told you the issues I have with that. Insisting that I must have some theory of explanations that I'm hinging things on and that you want me to relay to you makes no sense in context.

You're launching into a distraction, a general discussion of "explanation"

Because arguments that appeal to (whether there are) explanations are red herrings. If you want to base an argument on that, then support that the idea even makes sense and is coherent, consistent, etc.

All I can conclude is that you haven't the faintest idea what your criteria for explanations would be, yet that's not about to stop you from arguing that whether we have an explanation for something is an important issue.

henry quirk wrote: Mannie, I think I know you a little. You're my buddy, but you've pulled the same stunt with atheists (lumping 'em into one basket, ascribin' motvation and intent, and ignoring when some one [like me] steps up and objects to being painted with a broad brush).

You're doin' me, and yourself, a disservice.

Trying not to, Henry.

One of the things I like about you is your "common sense" approach. And I don't need to put you in a basket. I'm trying to appeal to your common sense. You know very well "you" is a real and existing thing. You believe in your own rough morality (such as, don't do disservices), and have your own code of honour (though honour is not material). Above all, your personal inclination seems to me to be against accepting pat answers. And all that I like.

But Materialists come in a basket. They huddle up and deny half of the phenomena in the world, in order to preserve their reductional creed. They have no way of verifying their hypothesis, so they just insist on it stubbornly instead, and hope ardency will serve where facts will not. Yet anyone can see empirically that they live as if things like reason, morality, values, emotions, sentience, and above all, identity really exist -- even while they claim "it's all materials."

"Hypocrisy!" I say. If a Materialist believes materials are all there are, let him live consistently: without reason, without morals, without sentience, without identity. And let's see how that basket holds up.

That's not you. You don't belong in that basket.

So in the name of common sense, climb out.

Immanuel Can, we could put it this way: I'm not about to play a game where you're the judge of what's fair or foul, what's a legal move or an illegal move in the game, where I haven't the faintest idea of your rules of the game in the first place. I'm not just going to take stabs in the dark re what your rules of the game might be. You can just state the rules if we're going to play a game.

Defending materialism without evidence or reasons, and then declaring the impossibility of all explanations anyway.

Round and round we go.

I'll wait until the spinning stops.

Terrapin Station wrote:You can just state the rules if we're going to play a game.

Rule #1: If you make an argument, back it up with reason and proof.

Rule #2: Nothing self-contradictory. If you can't "explain," then you cannot explain that explanations do not work, or are not applicable.

That'll do.

henry quirk wrote: ...cuz I ain't got the will or time to keep tip toeing and dancing for pages and pages.

Mannie, bahman: your fundamental position is 'matter, and the interplay of matter' cannot explain 'mind', yes?

If so, *well and fine.

I can only assume, if matter, and the interplay of matter, is not sufficient to explain 'mind', that you both believe 'mind' is just 'soul' misspelled, which, again, is well and fine.

Now, as I self-examine and - interrogate, I find myself to be only 'meat'...walkin', talkin', thinkin' meat...a real person who is friggin' fed up bein' told he doesn't exist, or that he's obligated (cuz he sees only materials) to deny he exists (gonna bust somebody in the head if that keeps up). You two would have me accept that I am actually ether in a meat car.

Seems to me, that requires a little evidence, which I'll happily inspect as soon as either of you (or any one) ponies it up.

*What's not so well and fine is the insistence by you both that all materialists are somehow dishonest, or taking a 'faith position', or -- if one is a materialist -- one obviously denies or ignores (or is somehow obligated to deny or ignore) 'mind'.

I don't know you, bahman, from a hole in the wall, but, Mannie, I think I know you a little. You're my buddy, but you've pulled the same stunt with atheists (lumping 'em into one basket, ascribin' motvation and intent, and ignoring when some one [like me] steps up and objects to being painted with a broad brush).

You're doin' me, and yourself, a disservice.

Well, the problem is that self is only a mental state if it is created with brain. That is meaningless to say that your self experience anything since a mental state, self, cannot experience another mental state, other stuff.

"Trying not to, Henry."

Jeez, but you (and bahman) still are. You aint't talkin' to me. You're talkin' to 'materialism'.

When either of you decide you wanna talk to me, drop me a line.

Now, I'm goin' to work...at least doin' that I can make some headway.

Immanuel Can, so why hinge an argument on the idea of whether there's an explanation for something if you have no idea what your criteria for explanations are?

Also, you'd say that my comments earlier count as an explanation for why I don't hinge arguments on the idea of explanations?

Immanuel Can wrote:Defending materialism without evidence or reasons, and then declaring the impossibility of all explanations anyway.

I just saw this post. So is "explanation" the same in your usage as "(giving) evidence or reasons"?

bahman wrote:
There is not really any use for sense of self/self. You see a tiger then scape. Moreover, in (4) we are discussing the fact that that is the self who experiences certain things and this is problematic since self is a mental state too.

OF course there is. If you didn't know that you are distinct from the tiger, you would stand there doing nothing. Why do you escape from the tiger? because you know that it is not you. How do you know that it is not you? because you can perceive your self. The self is a preservation mechanism of the brain.

We are not discussing anything. You are making a claim of some sort. Brain is capable of distinguishing itself from others as well as interpreting experiences. The combined effect is that of the self experiencing certain things. The self is a mental state. The experiences are mental interpretations of things. The interpretations are in themselves not mental states. They can create mental states like joy or anger or indifference or astonishment or just plain recognition as a separate entity.

sthitapragya wrote:The interpretations are in themselves not mental states.

I was with you until this sentence. What do you take interpretations to be if not mental states?

sthitapragya wrote: OF course there is. If you didn't know that you are distinct from the tiger, you would stand there doing nothing. Why do you escape from the tiger? because you know that it is not you. How do you know that it is not you? because you can perceive your self. The self is a preservation mechanism of the brain.

We are not discussing anything. You are making a claim of some sort. Brain is capable of distinguishing itself from others as well as interpreting experiences. The combined effect is that of the self experiencing certain things. The self is a mental state. The experiences are mental interpretations of things. The interpretations are in themselves not mental states. They can create mental states like joy or anger or indifference or astonishment or just plain recognition as a separate entity.

All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

bahman wrote:All you need is to process the picture you experiencing and realizing that there is a tiger there. You then escape. Even a computer can be programmed to do that. There is no need for sense of self or self.

I'm guessing before I start that there's no way you're going to understand this, but the implicit argument you're making here is this:

E is necessary in situation T.
S is sufficient for E in situation T.
However, just in case E can be achieved by C, B or A, then S isn't necessary.
E can be achieved by C, B or A.
Thus, there's no need for S.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes that just in case E can be achieved by C, B or A, then the necessity of E will be achieved by C, B or A. But that might not be the case for everything. And if S is sufficient for E, then S is needed in cases where C, B or A do not arise first.