tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7605877794696445498..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Case Against Cheerful HumanismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66378774097649108442016-03-25T17:24:54.891-07:002016-03-25T17:24:54.891-07:00I don't see how the question of whether though...I don't see how the question of whether thought is "material" is even meaningful. The physical laws known to apply to matter already contain variables that it's a stretch to say exist. But they are believable because they cause (at least in principle) measurable effects on more substantial variables in special circumstances.<br /><br />A living brain is impossible to analyze. Structurally, it's a lump of wet felt. A brain with or without a dualistic mind is indistinguishable.<br /><br />If thought were claimed to be found only within brains, such a claim could simply be delivered to the biology department and forgotten about. The problem is that thought seems to be present in physics, specifically in the agreement between quantum measurement and Bayesian inference. All the so-called rationalists get tongue-tied trying to deny this, but there's something obvious they're all missing.<br /><br />Even if Bayesian inference does occur in the laws of physics, it doesn't support a claim for spontaneous thought, because <i>thought is not Bayesian!</i> Thought doesn't follow any method of inference at all; it's utter chaos.<br /><br />The claim that thought is merely computation seems at face value to be a bold attack against the common claim that thought is numinous. But it's actually just another way of lending support to a more insidious claim, that thought is logical. And considering what's been happening to human society these past few years, that claim is no longer tenable!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17152102165135768652013-03-19T13:28:04.430-07:002013-03-19T13:28:04.430-07:00I think that's what they call the immortal, im...I think that's what they call the immortal, immaterial being that inhabits the body and serves as the seat of consciousness, intelligence, and morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75532236169836029852013-03-19T04:09:11.015-07:002013-03-19T04:09:11.015-07:00And how would you define "soul"?And how would you define "soul"?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72965799594741530522013-03-18T21:26:58.404-07:002013-03-18T21:26:58.404-07:00"what, to you, would qualify as immaterial?&q..."what, to you, would qualify as immaterial?"<br /><br />Souls.<br /><br />Gods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20357996406499889492013-03-18T18:16:23.612-07:002013-03-18T18:16:23.612-07:00What would you consider to be "immaterial&quo...What would you consider to be "immaterial"? If subjective mental phenomena are allowed to count as physical events under your definition, then what, to you, would qualify as immaterial?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88341573522240980922013-03-18T14:35:38.033-07:002013-03-18T14:35:38.033-07:00"at that point the word "physical" ..."at that point the word "physical" is pretty much meaningless in my view"<br /><br />I disagree with that. Consider a celestial body in orbit around another body. The orbit is a physical phenomenon, but it isn't a physical object. It's something that happens. Such is the case with conscious experiences. They are purely physical phenomena, even though by definition a subjective experience can't be observed by anyone other than the one who has that experience. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73058184304875764832013-03-18T13:38:33.625-07:002013-03-18T13:38:33.625-07:00Well, if you want to include subjective mental phe...Well, if you want to include subjective mental phenomena under the label "physical", I guess that's ok, but at that point the word "physical" is pretty much meaningless in my view. John Searle does the same thing - he takes a property dualist view while calling the mental "physical" in order to escape the label "dualist" because of its negative stigma (although he'll never admit that's what he's doing).ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47466484691383746842013-03-18T12:55:43.919-07:002013-03-18T12:55:43.919-07:00A subjective experience in a phenomenon. It is so...A subjective experience in a phenomenon. It is something that happens rather than some kind of object. Should I have included in my description of physical things phenomena as well? Maybe so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75219500205548631882013-03-18T12:32:12.507-07:002013-03-18T12:32:12.507-07:00Are you saying that a subjective experience has ma...Are you saying that a subjective experience has mass or energy? If so, how can we measure it given that it is by definition subjective? Furthermore, what is your definition of a soul?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42858447028890645472013-03-18T12:28:20.887-07:002013-03-18T12:28:20.887-07:00ingx24,
I tried to include everything that exists...ingx24,<br /><br />I tried to include everything that exists in the material world. Something like a soul would not qualify, since it has no mass or energy that we can discern. And anything that is 'transcendental' (ie - things that may exist apart from space-time) also don't qualify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74112954713451483202013-03-18T12:15:10.089-07:002013-03-18T12:15:10.089-07:00The problem with your (im-skeptical's) definit...The problem with your (im-skeptical's) definition of "physical" is that it seems to encompass everything. It's hard to see what could possibly count as immaterial on your definition.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78295512794499700742013-03-18T11:39:11.766-07:002013-03-18T11:39:11.766-07:00Yes, that is a matter for further investigation an...Yes, that is a matter for further investigation and pondering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22927246452628804582013-03-18T10:29:22.317-07:002013-03-18T10:29:22.317-07:00@im-skeptical:
"As I'm sure you know, I ...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"As I'm sure you know, I wasn't making a formal definition. It's just the way I would distinguish physical things from any immaterial things, if ever I encountered such a thing."<br /><br />And I just pointed that you do have on your hands, metaphorically speaking, a non-physical thing, namely space-time. Do with the conclusion whatever you wish.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43870268521866754812013-03-18T07:53:14.178-07:002013-03-18T07:53:14.178-07:00Good morning, grodrigues. As I'm sure you kno...Good morning, grodrigues. As I'm sure you know, I wasn't making a formal definition. It's just the way I would distinguish physical things from any immaterial things, if ever I encountered such a thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70385579134328645272013-03-18T04:09:27.353-07:002013-03-18T04:09:27.353-07:00@im-skeptical:
"OK, physical is something th...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"OK, physical is something that exists in space-time."<br /><br />space-time does not exist in space-time, therefore by your criteria it is not physical, therefore there are non-physical things.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5595533247006245252013-03-17T19:26:06.086-07:002013-03-17T19:26:06.086-07:00Well, by the way you defined "physical" ...Well, by the way you defined "physical" (which is far more broad of a definition than most people use), there's no problem with calling mental phenomena physical unless you don't allow that minds are located in space-time. If you define physical the way most people do, as being something tangible, observable, and quantifiable, then there are a lot of problems with calling the mental physical.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58999488397185953592013-03-17T18:36:47.646-07:002013-03-17T18:36:47.646-07:00Well, that's something that people just see di...Well, that's something that people just see differently, and I suppose it's understandable. Mental images and thoughts appear to have an existence apart from the physical, but things aren't always what they seem. The physics of Aristotle was based on an intuitive view of things that has since been shown to be not representative of physical reality. I think the same can be said of mental phenomena. As our knowledge continues to grow, the time will come when we look upon dualism as an anachronism, the way we now see Aristotelian physics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52719654773821223112013-03-17T17:55:49.736-07:002013-03-17T17:55:49.736-07:00Well, under the definition "exists in space-t...Well, under the definition "exists in space-time", I would probably count as a physicalist/materialist too, as would Victor Reppert :P It really seems like all we're disagreeing on is terminology at this point. My understanding of the physical is as something that is tangible - something that can, in principle, be observed or quantified. Mental states and processes, for obvious reasons, would not count as physical under this understanding - which is why materialists attempt to explain the mental out of existence by saying that it's really nothing but chemical reactions, electrical impulses, etc. in the brain, and typically do so by redefining "mental" in functional or computational terms.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30540474584082869052013-03-17T17:03:06.931-07:002013-03-17T17:03:06.931-07:00OK, physical is something that exists in space-tim...OK, physical is something that exists in space-time. It would be characterized as having mass or energy, or it could be a potential field, such as an electric or gravitational field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87633749184705068642013-03-17T16:48:51.356-07:002013-03-17T16:48:51.356-07:00You didn't really answer my question. What is ...You didn't really answer my question. What is your definition of physical/material?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36436065429139575262013-03-17T16:43:43.643-07:002013-03-17T16:43:43.643-07:00I guess that gets into what things really are. I ...I guess that gets into what things really are. I am a nominalist (as I understand the term). I believe there are no abstract objects or universals. I believe that mental phenomena are purely physical things. Even a subjective experience, such as a thought, is a physical thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56932326055257635162013-03-17T16:20:52.534-07:002013-03-17T16:20:52.534-07:00What do you define as material and immaterial?What do you define as material and immaterial?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7271216998243404572013-03-17T15:55:25.904-07:002013-03-17T15:55:25.904-07:00I'm not sure that it would be correct to say t...I'm not sure that it would be correct to say that I'm a property dualist. I still think that subjective mental experiences are entirely physical. It's just that the subjective aspect of something is not something that is objectively observable. To be honest, I have a hard time understanding exactly what property dualism is, but if it entails that there is something immaterial going on, I don't believe that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81852450548859282642013-03-17T15:31:39.262-07:002013-03-17T15:31:39.262-07:00It seems that the view you're describing is mo...It seems that the view you're describing is more of a kind of property dualism than a kind of materialism. In that case, what we disagree about is relatively insignificant except for usage of terminology (and the fact that I'm much more open to substance dualism than you are).ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70094688184053262882013-03-17T15:28:26.727-07:002013-03-17T15:28:26.727-07:00It's not "material yet subjective". ...It's not "material yet subjective". It's a material thing, in some part, at least, observable, but there is an aspect of it that is subjective. <br /><br />Consider an electron, which you might picture as a little ball. That's a thing we can observe, or at least detect, and I'm sure you would agree that it's a material thing. But what does it look like from the inside? That's an aspect of it that isn't observable, because we have no way of getting inside an electron. Does that imply that it's not material? I don't think so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com