Which of these scenarios is more reasonable?

[Kuznetzova]

Which of these scenarios is more reasonable to you?

1.

An elegant, concise, universal perspective that is consistent with all known facts?




2.

Or do you prefer, disembodied, immaterial Mind-substances?

[Impenitent]

human hubris is bound only by language

-Imp

[Hobbes' Choice]

Which of these scenarios is more reasonable to you?

1.

An elegant, concise, universal perspective that is consistent with all known facts?

2.

Or do you prefer, disembodied, immaterial Mind-substances?

I think you would be better to take from Descartes what he seeks to explain, and add it to that which choice 1 does not.

The paradox is that Descartes was proposing a materialist solution to the idea that had been an endemic assumption long before the ancients talked about the psyche. Placing the soul in the Pineal gland was a useful step that began to unpack the notion of the disembodied self.
But what he was concerned to preserve is the enigmatic realm of ideas, and sense of self that a hard materialism still fails to describe or explain.

[Kuznetzova]

But what he was concerned to preserve is the enigmatic realm of ideas, and sense of self that a hard materialism still fails to describe or explain.

I suppose you believe you are in secret possession of a good explanation?

[hammock]

Which of these scenarios is more reasonable to you? 1. An elegant, concise, universal perspective that is consistent with all known facts? 2. Or do you prefer, disembodied, immaterial Mind-substances?

Dualism seems to conjoin its two ontological concepts side by side, granting them an equal status on the same hierarchal floor.

Proper immaterialism would subsume the material category under an interpersonal / psychological category, which includes the former's internal, natural explanations of itself. That is, there would be no more conflict between the higher level and the lower anymore than there's a problem with the author of a novel (and her/his readers' reality) being absent from the story / reality of the book.

Another imperfect analogy would be the provenance of a computer game being absent from the regulated events of the game. That is, within the explanatory context of the latter, the overthrown King Tyrann was decapitated by the axe of an executioner rather than the software programming and PC hardware processes carrying out the game's scheme of operation (as well the decision-making input of the "transcendent" players participating in the game missing as contributing factors). A "physics" character in that game might proclaim to its philosopher inhabitants: "I have no need of Plato's tradition because the connections and causal relations of this world's entities offer satisfactory explanation enough." In response, a certain school of philosophers might declare: "Which is a fine, productive position to take. But it is part of our trade to criticize and remain open to alternative possibilities of what is going on, or resist becoming trapped in a particular narrow view or speculation-stifling prejudice. Even if such potential liberation might be more useful / applicable to any post-mortem and pre-fetal affairs, or anomalous enlightenments, than the current situation."

Generic neutral monism would demote both material and psychological classifications to a more fundamental principle from which the two emerged.

Immanuel Kant . . . "No doubt I, as represented by the internal sense in time [introspection], and objects in space outside me [extrospection], are two specifically different [types of] phenomena, but they are not therefore conceived as different things [substances]. The transcendent object, which forms the foundation of external phenomena [material], and the other, which forms the foundation of our internal intuition [mental], is therefore neither matter, nor a thinking being by itself, but simply an unknown cause of phenomena which supply to us the empirical concept of both."

I tend toward neutral monism or related. Which can likewise contain methodological naturalism as the approach which technology and much of society should favor toward understanding and controlling its world. But which also offers a large box of possibility and emancipation for the individual to privately entertain, though never positively confirmed in this life (if ever).

[Kuznetzova]

A "physics" character in that game might proclaim to its philosopher inhabitants: "I have no need of Plato's tradition because the connections and causal relations of this world's entities offer satisfactory explanation enough."

This is an entirely refreshing change to the forum here. I get the strong impression that you actually read my post. I think your reply is heavily weighed on the side of the kind of conversations we have at the horizon of our knowledge, where imagination and intuition and speculation are dominant. That is a fine exercise which I respect deeply. However the question in this thread is one of epistemology. Should you commit to molecules-and-reductionism as a neutral starting point, or should you just start accepting the existence of disembodied soul-substances right out of the gate? I would say lets start with we-are-molecules as a neutral epistemic starting point. Then later we can investigate paranormal phenomena months into the future sometime.

In response, a certain school of philosophers might declare: "Which is a fine, productive position to take. But it is part of our trade to criticize and remain open to alternative possibilities of what is going on, or resist becoming trapped in a particular narrow view or speculation-stifling prejudice. Even if such potential liberation might be more useful / applicable to any post-mortem and pre-fetal affairs, or anomalous enlightenments, than the current situation."

I have never heard anyone make such an argument, here, or on other forums, nor in the relevant chat rooms. This answer is very romanticized and idealistic. I invite this "certain school of philosophers" to look at how the woo-woo peddlers actually operate starting right here in this very thread. But you will find it in other places too. All over the place you will find them using tools of rhetoric -- they demagogue you, they proselytize at you, they manipulate your mind by covering up or excluding relevant facts. They are not searching for truth at all, because that process involves laying all the facts on the table in an honest manner and shining bright lights of scrutiny on them. Then only trying to find out in the most innocent way what is taking place. You will never see them listing facts. You will never see them talk about functional brain areas. In my posts, you will see me listing facts about functional brain areas (two birds. one stone). Instead the woo-woo peddlers never declare their motivations, preferring to hide them using the methods of passive aggression. They seek to weaken the people around them using confusion and excluding facts that are not conducive to their agenda. They don't act in a way which enlightens and empowers those around them. Instead the woo-woo peddlers come to writing with a prepackaged conclusion, and then go about collecting anecdotes to support it. That's called journalism. That is to say, it is not philosophy, and most definitely not a search for truth.

Your little romanticized philosophers are saying "well, we only do to this avoid stifling and narrowing ourselves". I'm saying this is romanticized, because I believe strongly that their motives in practice are much more sinister.

Immanuel Kant . . . "No doubt I, as represented by the internal sense in time [introspection], and objects in space outside me [extrospection], are two specifically different [types of] phenomena, but they are not therefore conceived as different things [substances]. The transcendent object, which forms the foundation of external phenomena [material], and the other, which forms the foundation of our internal intuition [mental], is therefore neither matter, nor a thinking being by itself, but simply an unknown cause of phenomena which supply to us the empirical concept of both."

I have not strongly committed myself to any exhaustive ontology, so this doesn't particularly apply. But regarding this idea that the cause is, quote, "but simply an unknown cause of phenomena" I would remind the Kantians that this phenomena is not entirely unknown anymore. After the 1950s, human beings gained the technological capacity to map the 3-dimensional shapes of molecules. In particular in 1952, the structure of the DNA molecule was uncovered by X-ray Diffraction. Quickly thereafter, images of atoms on the tops of surfaces were created using first Scanning-Tunnelling Microscopy, and then second Atomic Force Microscopy. The masses of molecules are now used to identify classes of molecules in a sample using a technology called Mass Spectrometry.

We know that the noumenon comes in the shape of atoms, and that these atoms bind into molecules through rules we understand. This "unknown phenomenon" Kant refers to is probably the exchange of energy between between molecules, causing forces and allowing us to see surfaces with our eyes. Atoms are quantum-mechanical, and their behavior is downright bizarre. They exchange energy and emit radiation of various kinds, and they have inner structure and act in complex ways, such as folding in proteins. There is still not exhaustive explanation for how their fundamental parts exist, but the Standard Model is something rather than nothing.

The claims I have written here are not wild speculative theories. These are established facts which appear in textbooks. The noumenon is not "entirely unknown" phenomenon anymore. It was definitely unknown during Kant's lifetime.

[thedoc]

monty python

[Kuznetzova]

Hey there, thedoc. Thanks for coming. Let me open your eyes to something you may have overlooked. Check it.

Proper immaterialism would subsume the material category under an interpersonal / psychological category,

"...proper immaterialism..."

But it is part of our trade to criticize and remain open to alternative possibilities of what is going on, or resist becoming trapped in a particular narrow view or speculation-stifling prejudice.

"..alternative possibilities"
"..narrow view"
"...speculation-stifling prejudice". (Oh! That's a ripe one.)

[Ginkgo]

edit

[Hobbes' Choice]

But what he was concerned to preserve is the enigmatic realm of ideas, and sense of self that a hard materialism still fails to describe or explain.

I suppose you believe you are in secret possession of a good explanation?

Teehee. No, what makes you think that?

But i think you would have to agree that the subtle organisation of the cerebrum, no matter how detailed we can describe it and show pretty pictures of it, does not go very fat to explain conscious awareness, the mind and the realm of ideas.
I'm not trying to pretend that simply pushing the idea of "soul" helps much. But there are still massive gaps that materialism may never fill.

Dualism is a metaphor that continues to work.

[Ginkgo]

I have not strongly committed myself to any exhaustive ontology, so this doesn't particularly apply. But regarding this idea that the cause is, quote, "but simply an unknown cause of phenomena" I would remind the Kantians that this phenomena is not entirely unknown anymore. After the 1950s, human beings gained the technological capacity to map the 3-dimensional shapes of molecules. In particular in 1952, the structure of the DNA molecule was uncovered by X-ray Diffraction. Quickly thereafter, images of atoms on the tops of surfaces were created using first Scanning-Tunnelling Microscopy, and then second Atomic Force Microscopy. The masses of molecules are now used to identify classes of molecules in a sample using a technology called Mass Spectrometry.

We know that the noumenon comes in the shape of atoms, and that these atoms bind into molecules through rules we understand. This "unknown phenomenon" Kant refers to is probably the exchange of energy between between molecules, causing forces and allowing us to see surfaces with our eyes. Atoms are quantum-mechanical, and their behavior is downright bizarre. They exchange energy and emit radiation of various kinds, and they have inner structure and act in complex ways, such as folding in proteins. There is still not exhaustive explanation for how their fundamental parts exist, but the Standard Model is something rather than nothing.

The claims I have written here are not wild speculative theories. These are established facts which appear in textbooks. The noumenon is not "entirely unknown" phenomenon anymore. It was definitely unknown during Kant's lifetime.

I don't think we can reject quantum mechanics as nothing compared to something. I think quantum mechanics has a lot to say about the nature of consciousness in general.

However, if we want to view the "thing-in-itself" in quantum terms then things that exist within themselves can only be reconciled and recorded if there is a conscious mind to make the observations. From the "thing-in-itself" to "things-for-us," If there is no conscious mind then there is only mathematical probability that exists as a set of equations waiting for an observer to discover in terms of causing an event to happen.

[Arising_uk]

Which of these scenarios is more reasonable to you?

1.

An elegant, concise, universal perspective that is consistent with all known facts?

2.

Or do you prefer, disembodied, immaterial Mind-substances?

Hmm. Well 1. obviously but I think your propositions have some problems, not least with what you mean by "molecule"? As a fair chunk of the Earth is not made of molecules or at least not molecules in the same sense as the molecules that make us up.

I also think you do Descartes a slight hindsight disservice as whilst Dualism may be in error it's well to remember that it was he was fairly instrumental in starting the Natural Philosophers upon the path of Science.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Which of these scenarios is more reasonable to you?

1.

An elegant, concise, universal perspective that is consistent with all known facts?

2.

Or do you prefer, disembodied, immaterial Mind-substances?

Hmm. Well 1. obviously but I think your propositions have some problems, not least with what you mean by "molecule"? As a fair chunk of the Earth is not made of molecules or at least not molecules in the same sense as the molecules that make us up.

I also think you do Descartes a slight hindsight disservice as whilst Dualism may be in error it's well to remember that it was he was fairly instrumental in starting the Natural Philosophers upon the path of Science.

Yes as well as inventing such things as co-ordinate geometry, he changed the direction of the intellectual word, by encouraging "how" questions, over "why" questions.
This is rather big, in fact it is really very big indeed.
In spite of being a Christian and and Catholic at that, he avoided the usual answer to why; "He (god) did it."

[jackles]

Man is a consciouse molecular structure.that comprehends evil.good alone can comprehend evil for being evil.good is god.the same good that knows evil.good is not emotion good is awareness.awareness is god.so molecular consciousness is god.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Man is a consciouse molecular structure.that comprehends evil.good alone can comprehend evil for being evil.good is god.the same good that knows evil.good is not emotion good is awareness.awareness is god.so molecular consciousness is god.

Humans are conscious molecular structures that identify evil and good within the realm of what is of interest to them.
S/he invents god to justify his choices, as if they were objective and absolute.