Materialists......

[hammegk]

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.

I see. I agree that as an objective idealist your statement -- regarding animal 'subjective experience' including HPC -- is correct, yet it implies the monism that is reality is not matter.

Is this what you meant, too?

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?"

Nothing, as long a one accepts the full consequences of that choice which must include hard atheism.

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?

Agreed. I just prefer to base my options on the worldview that for me results in the fewest contradictions.

Note that I am not a materialist.

Do you know that what you are is not some form of dualism? If so, good.

 

[nescafe]

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

I will join your new religion, as long as I can retain my belief in His Noodliness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

Actually, at this point I am merely asking for an acknowledgement that there is a means of clearly distinguishing them. "Feeling different" would suffice, provided it always applies, which it does - since one always "feels" subjective experiences but never "feels" brain processes.

 

[DreadNiK]

Because the truth matters.

Surely this is begging the question? What definitions of truth and matters are you using.

Again, as soon as you have to dig into semantics like this, it is a sure sign you are navel-gazing.

There is no religion higher than truth.

And this means what, precisely? (and you're the one using christian as a derogatory adjective, sigh)

 

[davidsmith73]

But before you can claim they are different, could you please show how they {subjective experiences} exist in reality.

And herein lies the problem. I was wondering how long it would take before someone makes demands for a definition or evidence of subjective experience.

DreadNik, would you accept the possibility that there are aspects of reality that cannot be linguistically defined, yet we could still be capable of knowing the nature of such things?

 

[DreadNiK]

I see. I agree that as an objective idealist your statement -- regarding animal 'subjective experience' including HPC -- is correct, yet it implies the monism that is reality is not matter.

Is this what you meant, too?


Nothing, as long a one accepts the full consequences of that choice which must include hard atheism.


Agreed. I just prefer to base my options on the worldview that for me results in the fewest contradictions.


Do you know that what you are is not some form of dualism? If so, good.

In simpler terms, please? Address my point that what you said was completely wrong and irrelevant. Without posting something else completely wrong and irrelevant. Please.

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you know that what you are is not some form of dualism? If so, good.

I don't like having to make exceptions. Isn't that what dualism entails? I would much rather have some sort of a unifying view -- right now that view is that I don't have much of a clue what is going on outside or inside my mind.

(Hey, at least its unifying!!)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

You don't understand. Sure - claiming that brains are minds would indeed be stupid, but the claim I am reacting to in this thread is an order of magnitude stupider even than that! I am reacting to a claim that there is no means of distinguishing between a mind and a brain process. There is no analogy with a computer available, unless you assume that your computer has a mind and can "feel" it when you type on the keyboard.

Here it is, ask Paul to explain it to you if you want to know what he meant:

If you think you can tell the difference between subjective experience and brain processes, then tell me what brain processes are like. Maybe this will jog my memory and I'll be able to remember the difference between subjective experience and brain processes.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

FACT 1 : You have never directly experienced a brain process.
FACT 2 : You HAVE directly experienced the sensation of red.

Which of these FACTS are you going to challenge, Paul?
If you cannot challenge any of these FACTS then there is a clear way to distinguish between a brain process and a sensation of red. I know you want to make it more complicated than this, but I see no reason to allow this to happen. Either challenge one of these FACTS or admit that there is a way to distinguish between the two.

I'm not going to challenge either one, but I do not know how to distinguish between them, except to say that the description of brain processes is not the same as my experiences.

Yep. It's been resolved in this thread already - I am just waiting for the penny to drop and for Paul to realise what is happening. "sensations of red" and "brain processes" are both, in the end, just linguistic concepts. So the question is whether or not there is a fundamental way of distinguishing between these two concepts. And there is.

Oh, I agree that there is a way of distinguishing the two concepts.

Even if, in the end, it turns out that these two concepts (somehow) refer to "the same thing", you can still distinguish between the two concepts.

As I said, I have no problem distinguishing between the descriptions of the two things.

I repeat: if you are seriously trying to claim that there is no distinction possible then you are way, way beyond the merely narrow-minded level of Dawkins and Dennett. Neither of them would utter such a rank absurdity, because if they did so then their academic careers would be over. They would be ripped to pieces. Think about what you are actually saying.

For an effectively content-free discussion, you sure are strident and overbearing about it.

~~ Paul

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Kevin,

You're on my ignore list, and in your case I have overcome the temptation to sneak a look at your posts. There will not be anything in it worth a response.

I've never understood the need to announce that you are now filtering out someone else’s messages. It looks like a last ditch effort to get the last word in.

Oh course; I’ve never understood much philosophy. The external world seems pretty real to me. So real that even if you don’t believe it is real, it is best for your health to treat it as such.

LLH

 

[DreadNiK]

And herein lies the problem. I was wondering how long it would take before someone makes demands for a definition or evidence of subjective experience.

DreadNik, would you accept the possibility that there are aspects of reality that cannot be linguistically defined, yet we could still be capable of knowing the nature of such things?

Urgh. That is a sticky question. What about aspects of reality that can only be mathematically defined?

Could you try to define more explicitly "knowing the nature of..." and could you provide an example, even if you can't be precise, of what you are driving at?

 

[DreadNiK]

I've never understood the need to announce that you are now filtering out someone else’s messages. It looks like a last ditch effort to get the last word in.

Well, maybe otherwise people would wonder why he isn't responding to someone who has made completely valid points...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Surely this is begging the question? What definitions of truth and matters are you using.

"Matters" = "is important".
"Truth" is harder. I subscribe to a coherentist theory of truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

And this means what, precisely? (and you're the one using christian as a derogatory adjective, sigh)

It means that I pursue the truth as a matter of religious conviction. This involves NEVER lying to anybody about anything and always seeking to improve my understand of what is true and what is false. For me, truth is an end in itself. For most people, it tends to be a means to and end.

The phrase itself, if you weren't aware, is associated with theosophy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, maybe otherwise people would wonder why he isn't responding to someone who has made completely valid points...

Correct. The comment was for the benefit of others, not Kevin.

 

[DreadNiK]

But you've answered my question "why does it matter" with "because it matters". "Just because".

 

[nescafe]

You don't understand. Sure - claiming that brains are minds would indeed be stupid, but the claim I am reacting to in this thread is an order of magnitude stupider even than that! I am reacting to a claim that there is no means of distinguishing between a mind and a brain process. There is no analogy with a computer available, unless you assume that your computer has a mind and can "feel" it when you type on the keyboard.

ah. Then what is the subject that has these subjective experiences? What is it built out of?

 

[DreadNiK]

Correct. The comment was for the benefit of others, not Kevin.

Everything I said was correct? Good, I'm glad you agree Kevin's points were valid

 

[rocketdodger]

For me, truth is an end in itself. For most people, it tends to be a means to and end.

I would suggest that perhaps your gratification is the end, and for you personally truth itself is the means to that end. Is this better than someone who uses the truth of physics to construct weapons that they will use to rob their neighbors of wealth, the end? Probably. I would certainly rather have YOU as a neighbor lol!!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

DreadNik, would you accept the possibility that there are aspects of reality that cannot be linguistically defined, yet we could still be capable of knowing the nature of such things?

Possibly, although I'm not sure how we would know if we were correct in our feeling that we knew, nor could we convince anyone else. Certainly I wouldn't give much credit to "I just know I know." You may not know crap through introspection.

~~ Paul

 

[DreadNiK]

I would suggest that perhaps your gratification is the end, and for you personally truth itself is the means to that end. Is this better than someone who uses the truth of physics to construct weapons that they will use to rob their neighbors of wealth, the end? Probably. I would certainly rather have YOU as a neighbor lol!!

No, he thinks he means what he says. He is that smug.

I'd rather have him as a neighbour than, say, a creationist.