Materialists......

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, I'll tell you. The argument has been caused by certain people trying to defend the claim that there is no way to distinguish between a brain process and a subjective experience, and by myself reacting to this with the utter contempt it deserves. The point being that even a materialist, if he wants to avoid accusations of rank stupidity, must accept there is such a distinction - even if he wishes to subsequently argue that (somehow) they are the same thing. What do you think?

Perhaps you could clarify, for philosophical newbs such as myself, what your definitions of "brain process" and "subjective experience" are.

 

[nescafe]

I do not know how else to deal with people who set themselves up as intelligent, thinking human beings and then make statements which are completely and utterly absurd. Call a spade a spade, tricky.

So everyone who does not have your training in philosophy and neuropsychology but that holds an opinion that does not perfectly match yours in the nature of subjective experience is an idiot? Even those that do have that training but think that "the subjective experience of $foo is the result of brain function" is a perfectly acceptable shorthand for those who do not have the time or interest to get into hairsplitting detail?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky,

Just for you, I read Kevin's post. It wasn't worth reading. It certainly wasn't worth replying to. Precisely which of his "arguments" do you think deserve a response? I couldn't find any.

Geoff

Mostly that a lot of the "arguments" are merely assertions without any evidence to back them up, but lots of insults. I really don't think you make an impression on anyone by calling people who disagree with you "stupid" and worse, no matter how strongly you feel this to be true.

 

[DreadNiK]

That is simply not true. Several people in this thread have defended non-ridiculous materialist positions which I have accepted as perfectly reasonable, even though I believe they are wrong. I am only getting annoyed at people who have posted things which are worthy only of mockery. I have little time for either dishonesty or for rank stupidity.

Edit: And by the way, it is also very disappointing that none of the reasonable people who have recognised a distinction but still wish to defend materialism have had the courage to come out and agree with my accusation that failing to acknowledge the distinction is absurd. Skeptics like to claim that they are immune to sheep-mentality - that this would be like trying to herd cats. I am not so sure that this is always true. Where is the brave non-sheep materialist who is willing to back me up on this one? Can't see any......

Just because you play with semantics doesn't make you a) a philosopher b) right c) somehow so much smarter than everyone else.

You think just because there are two different words for something there are two different things? Or that it matters that you can have conceptual differentiation without any actual real differentiation.

Such simple words, yet for most people tacitly assuming materialism True. And if not TRUE at 100%, what do you mean? Are you a dualist, or a ~materialist (that is, materialism False at 100%)?

Erm. No. My statement "If a subjective experience is the direct result of a brain process, and can never occur without such a process, surely it is only different conceptually and not actually?" is not true only by tacitly assuming materialism. That has nothing to do with it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps you could clarify, for philosophical newbs such as myself, what your definitions of "brain process" and "subjective experience" are.

That is very easy. "Brain process" shouldn't cause anyone the slightest problem, since we all know what is meant by "brain". "Brain process" is therefore a neuro-physiological electro-chemical process occuring in a brain. "Subjective experience" is what your mind is composed of - something like the sensation of seeing red when you look at a ripe tomato. So when you look at a ripe tomato there are two obviously distinguishable "things" - there is a process occuring in your brain and there are your experiences of seeing a ripe tomato. Now, there are plenty of arguments about whether it is possible that (in some undefined sense) both of these things are "really the same thing". Indeed, it is almost certain that (in some undefined sense) they are the same thing - but this does not change the blatant FACT that at the very least there are two different perspectives on this "same thing" - an internal (subjective) one and an external (objective) one. When the defence of materialism has reached the stage where somebody is denying that they can distinguish between these two perspectives then the debate has descended to the same sort of level as that which occurs when you try to explain basic geology to a Christian who is so seriously brainwashed that he believes the grand canyon was formed in a single flood. No proper debate can be had because one of the people having the debate is so keen to defend his cherished dogma that he has lost all capacity for rational thought - at which point you might just as well take the p*ss instead of having a normal conversation.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That is very easy. "Brain process" shouldn't cause anyone the slightest problem, since we all know what is meant by "brain". "Brain process" is therefore a neuro-physiological electro-chemical process occuring in a brain. "Subjective experience" is what your mind is composed of - something like the sensation of seeing red when you look at a ripe tomato. So when you look at a ripe tomato there are two obviously distinguishable "things" - there is a process occuring in your brain and there are your experiences of seeing a ripe tomato. Now, there are plenty of arguments about whether it is possible that (in some undefined sense) both of these things are "really the same thing". Indeed, it is almost certain that (in some undefined sense) they are the same thing - but this does not change the blatant FACT that at the very least there are two different perspectives on this "same thing" - an internal (subjective) one and an external (objective) one....

Is my understanding correct then that you are saying that "brain" <> "mind" and that some people are defending materialism by stating that "brain" == "mind"?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Mostly that a lot of the "arguments" are merely assertions without any evidence to back them up....

Except as usual, the reverse is true. I actually provided a long opening post which explained my position very clearly. Kevin responded with answers which were three words long. So WHO was it who was merely asserting things without backing them up? It was Kevin, not me. He couldn't possibly have backed them up because there were nothing but three word replies.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Is my understanding correct then that you are saying that "brain" <> "mind" and that some people are defending materialism by stating that "brain" == "mind"?

No. I'm making a much weaker claim. I am admitting the possibility that (in some as yet undefined sense) brain may still equal mind. But I am also saying that it is absurd to simply claim that one cannot tell the difference between a brain and a mind. At the very least "brain" and "mind" are two different perspectives on "the same thing". It is not absurd to claim that brains and minds must "somehow" be equivalent - indeed materialists have little option but to do so. But claiming that (honest, guvnor) you really have no idea how anyone would distinguish between the two is either serious intellectual dishonesty or rank stupidity.

There has been several hundred years of philosphical debate about the relationship between subjective and objective, between brain and mind. But there has never, EVER, been serious philosophical debate about whether or not there is even an issue to be addressed. To my knowledge nobody at all within the whole history of philosophy has ever claimed that he had no idea how to distinguish between brain and mind. The debate has always been about how one can legitimately claim they are the same thing, given that there is a prima facie distinction between the two. The people who care claiming they cannot tell the difference are trying to make out that they don't understand why there has even been a debate, regardless of the fact that it is one of the most important debates that has ever been had by anyone and which has dominated metaphysics from Descartes to Dennett.

I am merely trying to get people to think a little bit harder before they post total nonsense.

 

[rocketdodger]

Kevin is capable of defending materialism by assuming it True. So what?

Actually, hammy, this is something I have been giving alot of thought lately.

Assuming materialism works, and assuming it doesn't suffer from any greater problems than the other world views in the face of metaphysics, what is wrong with assuming its truth initially, in order to sort of "prime the pump?"

This question sort of applies to all arguments, in fact. As long as they work for us, why not simply assume the truth of one of the statements and then check for contradictions from there?

Note that I am not a materialist.

 

[Tricky]

Except as usual, the reverse is true. I actually provided a long opening post which explained my position very clearly. Kevin responded with answers which were three words long. So WHO was it who was merely asserting things without backing them up? It was Kevin, not me. He couldn't possibly have backed them up because there were nothing but three word replies.

Yes, your position is stated clearly, but it is only that. Since you have provided no evidence for your position (which is not surprising because it is, after all, merely a philosophical position) there is nothing stupid about people disagreeing with your assertions. It seems that your main claim is that the subjective experience must be different from brain processes because it feels like they are different. I can certainly understand why you might feel that way. The mind/brain connection is one that is baffling and poorly understood. But what is see is that more and more "subjective" experiences can be tied to specific brain functions, though certainly not all. I do not find it a tremendous leap to find it possible that all subjective experiences have a material basis.

Now I admit ignorance in philosophical jargon, but I don't think that makes me stupid. Neither do I see anything in your argument that looks remotely like evidence. It only looks like philosophy.

 

[DreadNiK]

That is very easy. "Brain process" shouldn't cause anyone the slightest problem, since we all know what is meant by "brain". "Brain process" is therefore a neuro-physiological electro-chemical process occuring in a brain. "Subjective experience" is what your mind is composed of - something like the sensation of seeing red when you look at a ripe tomato. So when you look at a ripe tomato there are two obviously distinguishable "things" - there is a process occuring in your brain and there are your experiences of seeing a ripe tomato. Now, there are plenty of arguments about whether it is possible that (in some undefined sense) both of these things are "really the same thing". Indeed, it is almost certain that (in some undefined sense) they are the same thing - but this does not change the blatant FACT that at the very least there are two different perspectives on this "same thing" - an internal (subjective) one and an external (objective) one. When the defence of materialism has reached the stage where somebody is denying that they can distinguish between these two perspectives then the debate has descended to the same sort of level as that which occurs when you try to explain basic geology to a Christian who is so seriously brainwashed that he believes the grand canyon was formed in a single flood. No proper debate can be had because one of the people having the debate is so keen to defend his cherished dogma that he has lost all capacity for rational thought - at which point you might just as well take the p*ss instead of having a normal conversation.

Firstly, could you tell precisely what you gain from having your opinion, i.e. why does it matter?

Secondly, prove to me subjective experiences exist in the real world. Brain process exist, because we have used the term to define something that exists. But the term subjective experience is used to describe a concept. So yes in THAT sense they are different but in the real world, either only one of them exists, or they are both the same or they are different. But before you can claim they are different, could you please show how they exist in reality.

Actually, hammy, this is something I have been giving alot of thought lately.

Assuming materialism works, and assuming it doesn't suffer from any greater problems than the other world views in the face of metaphysics, what is wrong with assuming its truth initially, in order to sort of "prime the pump?"

This question sort of applies to all arguments, in fact. As long as they work for us, why not simply assume the truth of one of the statements and then check for contradictions from there?

Note that I am not a materialist.

Just because you find no inherent contradictions with assuming something true does not prove it, it just fails to disprove it.

Except as usual, the reverse is true. I actually provided a long opening post which explained my position very clearly. Kevin responded with answers which were three words long. So WHO was it who was merely asserting things without backing them up? It was Kevin, not me. He couldn't possibly have backed them up because there were nothing but three word replies.

Nope.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually, hammy, this is something I have been giving alot of thought lately.

Assuming materialism works, and assuming it doesn't suffer from any greater problems than the other world views in the face of metaphysics, what is wrong with assuming its truth initially, in order to sort of "prime the pump?"

The problem is that it is philosophically sterile as a defence of materialism. You can defend any position you like by assuming the position is true and then re-arranging the facts and evidence to suit the conclusion. Just put "assume the Bible is true" into your argument instead. If you assume the Bible is true then there is no problem explaining how the Grand Canyon was formed. Obviously, it must have been formed in Noah's flood. This works only for the creationist. It is philosophically and scientifically sterile for anybody else. It certainly isn't going to to work as a defence of biblical literalism. For it not to be philosphically sterile it is neccesary to avoid making an assumption that the Bible is true and avoid assuming it is false either. The same goes for materialism. I can defend any metaphysical position you like if I simply assume it is true. Materialists here have had a real problem with this - the problem being that whenever anybody tries to start from a position where no such metaphysical assumption has been made the materialist interprets it that somebody has started with an assumption that materialism must be false. But they are simply wrong on this. For example, by recognising that there is a prima facie means of distinguishing between minds and brains one has NOT made any metaphysical assumptions at all. But i predict at least one materialist will respond to this post by claiming that this is not so. The upshot of this is that any evidence that contradicts materialism is simply dismissed for no other reason than it contradicts materialism.

The argument which must be avoided is this one:

"Materialism is true, therefore materialism is true"

This question sort of applies to all arguments, in fact. As long as they work for us, why not simply assume the truth of one of the statements and then check for contradictions from there?

Because the materialists aren't capable of seeing the contradiction. Just like the creationists aren't capable of seeing that creationism contradicts geology. Instead, they twist geology so it no longer contradicts creationism.

If you want to be able to think clearly about something then assuming your conclusion is true is not the way to go. Sometimes, it must be said, there is no other means available of testing a position. But that is not the case here. There is no need to make a metaphysical assumption in order to conclude that brains are distinguishable from minds, so it is never justified to do so.

 

[rocketdodger]

Just because you find no inherent contradictions with assuming something true does not prove it, it just fails to disprove it.

I agree. But I am not talking about proving, only making it work for us. We can't prove any of the axioms, yet our rational thought is founded upon them because they "work" in the sense that they don't lead to any contradictions.

I advocate doing away with all notions of "truth" and replacing them with "utility."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Firstly, could you tell precisely what you gain from having your opinion, i.e. why does it matter?

Because the truth matters. There is no religion higher than truth.

Secondly, prove to me subjective experiences exist in the real world. Brain process exist, because we have used the term to define something that exists.

Hold on a moment..... There's all sorts of assumptions in here. We need to avoid defining "real" at this point - especially if there is going to be tendency to define "real" as "physical". I cannot prove to you that subjective experiences exist at all. But unless you are a zombie, I don't need to. That piece of information is the one most basic existential fact you can have. Subjective experiences exist because other wise you would not be having any right now. How this relates to your concept of "reality" is another question entirely.

But the term subjective experience is used to describe a concept. So yes in THAT sense they are different but in the real world, either only one of them exists, or they are both the same or they are different. But before you can claim they are different, could you please show how they exist in reality.

We haven't got an agreed definition of "reality". We won't be able to agree on one, either. To do so would be to bypass the arguments.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, your position is stated clearly, but it is only that. Since you have provided no evidence for your position (which is not surprising because it is, after all, merely a philosophical position) there is nothing stupid about people disagreeing with your assertions.

No.

It seems that your main claim is that the subjective experience must be different from brain processes because it feels like they are different.

No.

I can certainly understand why you might feel that way. The mind/brain connection is one that is baffling and poorly understood. But what is see is that more and more "subjective" experiences can be tied to specific brain functions, though certainly not all. I do not find it a tremendous leap to find it possible that all subjective experiences have a material basis.

No.

Now I admit ignorance in philosophical jargon, but I don't think that makes me stupid. Neither do I see anything in your argument that looks remotely like evidence. It only looks like philosophy.

No.

See? I can do it too. :shakes head:

 

[rocketdodger]

The problem is that it is philosophically sterile as a defence of materialism. You can defend any position you like by assuming the position is true and then re-arranging the facts and evidence to suit the conclusion.

If you defend positions by proving them to be true, then yes. However, what if you defend a position simply by how well it allows us to predict the future?

 

[Tricky]

No.
No.
No.
No.

See? I can do it too. :shakes head:

I still don't think you're stupid.

 

[nescafe]

No. I'm making a much weaker claim. I am admitting the possibility that (in some as yet undefined sense) brain may still equal mind. But I am also saying that it is absurd to simply claim that one cannot tell the difference between a brain and a mind. At the very least "brain" and "mind" are two different perspectives on "the same thing". It is not absurd to claim that brains and minds must "somehow" be equivalent - indeed materialists have little option but to do so. But claiming that (honest, guvnor) you really have no idea how anyone would distinguish between the two is either serious intellectual dishonesty or rank stupidity.

I don't think anyone is making that claim (that the brain is the mind) -- that would be stupid indeed, like claiming that Windows XP is my computer. Materialism is compatible with the statement "the mind is what the brain does", though, and in that sense (given preposterous amounts of time and brain scanning equipment that we will likely never have), it should be possible to isolate someone's "subjective experience of red" and describe it terms of the state of someone's brain. That the description would probably be only slightly more useful than describing this discussion in terms of bits flowing back and forth on the Internet, in the computers rendering this text, and in the servers that house the JREF forums, though, is totally irrelavent.

 

[DreadNiK]

I agree. But I am not talking about proving, only making it work for us. We can't prove any of the axioms, yet our rational thought is founded upon them because they "work" in the sense that they don't lead to any contradictions.

I advocate doing away with all notions of "truth" and replacing them with "utility."

I wouldn't disagree other than to say as long as one is prepared to accept that contradictions may later present themselves and one must be prepared to alter position if this happens.

Also, I tend to think that this sort of philosophy just leads to a point where nothing of value can be gained by being on one side or the other...I'm trying to think of an analogy...how about it is like believing in sentient extra-terrestrial life or not (in the sense you believe it exists but not that you belive you've been abducted or that there is any hard evidence)...I'm picking that apart myself already but it as close as I can get...

 

[davidsmith73]

It seems that your main claim is that the subjective experience must be different from brain processes because it feels like they are different.

That's along the right lines but I don't think that is the main thrust of Geoff's position, if I may interject (correct me if I'm wrong Geoff). Its not that subjective experience feels different to brain processes, but rather, in the first instance brain processes (or any physical process) are identified by quantitative relationships whereas this other aspect of reality (I like to simply call it "quality") is not.

I can certainly understand why you might feel that way. The mind/brain connection is one that is baffling and poorly understood. But what is see is that more and more "subjective" experiences can be tied to specific brain functions, though certainly not all. I do not find it a tremendous leap to find it possible that all subjective experiences have a material basis.

I wouldn't like to see this thread turn into a defence of materialism, but "tied to specific brain processes" is quite a vague and poorly defined statement that certainly does not invite us to make the leap to say "subjective experiences have a material basis".

Neither do I see anything in your argument that looks remotely like evidence.

why are you looking for evidence of this?