Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

Your god is omnipotent....right?

Your god created at least 1 universe, right?

Ergo....




You sure? Perhaps it would help to not present it as it is in the literature.




Limits of the halves of the physical brain...and the ability for each half to simply fill in logical and memory gaps with fiction.




I have not seen any procedures. Just a claim.



You'll find this funny...another poster here, I was just telling him people like easy answers. Maybe not on this thread though.




Why did someone try to figure out what it's like being a bat?

Time on their hands I suppose.




Whoa...I didn't take a dump on your speculation.

That's all you've done btw. Speculate.




Again, have you considered dumbing it down for those of us less well read?





You love saying that.

The problem is that the more you do....the less it appears as if you understand what the literature says.



I've only ever seen evidence pile up on the physical side of this argument. Feel free to point out what I missed. For your sake and mine....don't refer me to some vague literature. I won't be researching your points for you.




Uh huh.




Perhaps you can refer me to the literature again.





Here's a tip...

Throwing words like "epistemic", "metaphysic", analytical logic, semantic, principles, etc...these don't inherently intimidate people. It certainly isn't impressive when you demand everyone read some author to better understand a non-problem you don't have any non-answer for.

If you take a peek....you'd notice nobody really published anything on this "problem" in 15+ years. That's because neuroscience has made huge strides in showing which parts of the brain do what....

Then there's this Elon Musk guy implanting microchips in brains and they've allowed a guy paralyzed from the neck down to operate a computer with his thoughts.

See? It doesn't really matter if you think you came up with a solution that involves pretending definitions are different and not telling anyone what they are.....

The science is rapidly moving past the question.

Just because people have begun to ignore the problem doesn't mean it isn't still an issue. It just means there is an agreement not to ask the question anymore, because as long as nobody brings it up it doesn't need to be addressed. Which is fairly typical of "science:" when it comes to these sorts of questions. As long as everybody agrees not to ask about it anymore, it ceases to be a problem. I have no intention of intimidating anyone, and it's rather amusing that you think that is my intention. But the problem is still a problem, there's just been a silent agreement to stop asking about it. None of what you have provided has been substantive in replying to what I have said, and you've brought nothing to the table to address the issue at hand. If anyone is trying to intimidate anyone else, it's you and the other consensus thinkers who don't seem to be bringing any substantive objections to the table.

 

[Fervent]

Such a cynical, merely personal opinion there, which completely ignores the evidence of what science has produced and continues to produce.

Circular reasoning isn't impressive to me. Science's successes can be explained entirely by its recursive function. More people reasoning circularly doesn't make it any more impressive than a single person reasoning circularly.

The logical 'trap' you appear to think you've invented in the OP, (which thus far, no-one supports or has seen any potential value arising from it), will have zero impact on science going forwards. Science grabs any concept it can test and makes it useful.

There's no "trap". Just procedures. The fact that the only objections that seem to be raised are denials that there is any problem when there clearly is, and no one who has objected has raised a substantive reply other than simply denying and appealing to a circular consensus speaks volumes about the ability for honest criticism to exist.

If there was any semblance of a scientific 'truth' its clear that there's a mountain of evidence that scientific papers/books etc distinguish between logical and scientific truths, not that they explicitly mention that they are distinguishing them .. it is obvious that they distinguish them, because scientific papers/books, etc are rife with things that do not follow purely from logical. Is that not completely obvious to you? Really? Are you going to need to open a science book to a random page and see if what is written there is a formal consequence of say, some base logical syllogism or another? Or, take two science books written 100 years apart, and decide how they could both be examples of logical syllogisms?

Increased words that do nothing but obfuscate the issues at hand.

I say it again: science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it does not use logic to create its models. That is obvious, you can also see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are different.
Science is known to be distinguishable by its method, regardless of your cynicism.

Just more excuses to justify reasoning yourself in little circles and play make-believe when it comes to knowledge.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just because people have begun to ignore the problem doesn't mean it isn't still an issue.

Sure...I would suggest though that perhaps when nearly all discussion of a philosophical problem falls silent....it's not because of a deliberate choice to ignore.

It's because they don't want to weigh in on a matter that is practically settled....or worse, weigh in falsely.

Philosophy, like religion, tends express a worldview that can be in many ways entirely based upon truth...or only based upon truth in some ways. Like religion, science has become an oppressive force....threatening to remove the philosopher from any relevance just as it does to the priest. You can see this scientific dread in folklore like Faust....and in the works of philosophers like Hegel who hoped to reinvent the wheel and create another path to truth....or the works of postmodernists...whose greatest observations are so mundane one might imagine they would retire in shame.

The question didn't get any more or less difficult in the early 2000s....but evidence of it's answer began to rapidly pile up and without any effort from philosophers at all

It just means there is an agreement not to ask the question anymore,

I saw no such agreement.

because as long as nobody brings it up it doesn't need to be addressed.

I've got news for you....I can't imagine why it would need to be addressed at all.....science or not. It's certainly interesting to consider....but would a definitive answer matter to anyone in any meaningful way? It's difficult to see that it would.

I have no intention of intimidating anyone, and it's rather amusing that you think that is my intention.

I typically give people the benefit of the doubt....and don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to other attitudes. I did this for you as well....

If you go back and look....you'll see me asking if this is still considered a real problem that people devote time to. You'll see me mildly suggest that terms you insist are unclear can be clarified. You'll even see me repeatedly ask for a simplification....so that you can get a wider range of responses....and so that those of us already familiar with the problem can be certain of your proposed "solution".

Instead....you continually buried the proposed solution under claims of logical integrity (I don't recall any formal logic proposals you made) and insisted that I bother reading 15yo books to understand the newest views on this old problem.

But the problem is still a problem, there's just been a silent agreement to stop asking about it.

I bet there's been no agreement...instead, they all reached the conclusion you've been avoiding because they aren't as emotionally attached to their view being correct.

None of what you have provided has been substantive in replying to what I have said,

You're asking me to consider an old timey presumption as a modern problem....when I don't see the presumption leading to any problem.

That's probably because I have piles of evidence....they only had speculation.

and you've brought nothing to the table to address the issue at hand.

That makes two of us then.

If anyone is trying to intimidate anyone else, it's you and the other consensus thinkers

I wasn't aware I was in a consensus. I simply followed the logical conclusion of the evidence. That's probably what your authors did as well....and why they stopped writing about the issue.

 

[Fervent]

Sure...I would suggest though that perhaps when nearly all discussion of a philosophical problem falls silent....it's not because of a deliberate choice to ignore.

It's because they don't want to weigh in on a matter that is practically settled....or worse, weigh in falsely.

Philosophy, like religion, tends express a worldview that can be in many ways entirely based upon truth...or only based upon truth in some ways. Like religion, science has become an oppressive force....threatening to remove the philosopher from any relevance just as it does to the priest. You can see this scientific dread in folklore like Faust....and in the works of philosophers like Hegel who hoped to reinvent the wheel and create another path to truth....or the works of postmodernists...whose greatest observations are so mundane one might imagine they would retire in shame.

The question didn't get any more or less difficult in the early 2000s....but evidence of it's answer began to rapidly pile up and without any effort from philosophers at all



I saw no such agreement.



I've got news for you....I can't imagine why it would need to be addressed at all.....science or not. It's certainly interesting to consider....but would a definitive answer matter to anyone in any meaningful way? It's difficult to see that it would.




I typically give people the benefit of the doubt....and don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to other attitudes. I did this for you as well....

If you go back and look....you'll see me asking if this is still considered a real problem that people devote time to. You'll see me mildly suggest that terms you insist are unclear can be clarified. You'll even see me repeatedly ask for a simplification....so that you can get a wider range of responses....and so that those of us already familiar with the problem can be certain of your proposed "solution".

Instead....you continually buried the proposed solution under claims of logical integrity (I don't recall any formal logic proposals you made) and insisted that I bother reading 15yo books to understand the newest views on this old problem.




I bet there's been no agreement...instead, they all reached the conclusion you've been avoiding because they aren't as emotionally attached to their view being correct.




You're asking me to consider an old timey presumption as a modern problem....when I don't see the presumption leading to any problem.

That's probably because I have piles of evidence....they only had speculation.





That makes two of us then.



I wasn't aware I was in a consensus. I simply followed the logical conclusion of the evidence. That's probably what your authors did as well....and why they stopped writing about the issue.

Which theory of mind is supposed to hold the answer, then? Which of the many robust responses to the question is supposed to have explained how the physical is ultimately responsible for mental phenomena? If the answer is so clear based on the evidence, surely we can identify whose response is correct, right? Why isn't it a problem anymore? Why is your only recourse to what I have stated to deny that it is a problem, while not providing the correct philosophical understanding? So if it's not a problem anymore, which theoretical solution is correct?

My response to the problem depends on two things being true, as far as logic is concerned. The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. A substantive reply to me isn't denying that the problem exists because people have chosen to stop asking it for fear of giving the wrong answer, it would requiring identifying a procedural error I have committed or denying the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction in some way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which theory of mind is supposed to hold the answer, then?

Of the ones you listed which came closest?

Or of all possible answers suggested which came closest?

It doesn't appear any of them got it 100% correct but if we're asking which seems closest, physicalism, though it's based on some unwarranted assumptions.

If the answer is so clear based on the evidence, surely we can identify whose response is correct, right?

You're assuming a couple of things here...

1. The question was asked in such a way it covered all possible answers.

2. All possible answers were given and therefore, the correct one can be found amongst them.

Remember....philosophy isn't really good at truth. If you did a survey of published philosophers....I think it's a 60/40 split or 70/30 split on "if the universe is real or a simulation."

Why isn't it a problem anymore?

I'm not certain it ever was.

Why is your only recourse to what I have stated to deny that it is a problem.

@Fervent ....you described this "problem" as a presumption earlier (or was it presupposition?) and I agreed it was...

Saying that it's a "problem" though is something else....

Can you tell me who this is a problem for and in what way it's a problem?

If you can do that....you'd have a good chance of me agreeing it's a problem.

If you can't do that...then even in some wild scenario where we both agree your solution "answers" the problem....I don't see it affecting our lives, or anyone else's, in any real way.

My response to the problem depends on two things being true, as far as logic is concerned. The law of identity

Hegel....despite all the sophistry...argued the law of identity was nonsense. It presupposes all future states and there's no logical justification for this.

I tend to agree.

and the law of non-contradiction.

Did you see the point I made about non-contradiction earlier?

A substantive reply to me isn't denying that the problem exists

1. Ok...can you just stop assuming it exists and state who this is a problem for?

If you can't....we can downgrade this from a "problem" to a "question". These both have answers.

because people have chosen to stop asking it for fear of giving the wrong answer,

Well why bother attempting an answer if science has already moved us far closer to the answer than hundreds of years of philosophy?

it would requiring identifying a procedural error I have committed or denying the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction in some way.

I didn't see any procedure. I saw a naked, unsupported claim that two different words meant the same thing. At this point...I'm unsure which words were part of your answer.

I hope it's not "physical and natural". As another poster already stated...as clearly as I did...physical is a subcategory of natural. If your solution is to simply deny this....claim that both mental and physical are natural and therefore the same thing....

Then why bring up the mental at all? Why not just admit that you agree this is a physical process? If it's the same as natural...we need not confuse anyone by referring to what is natural. It's all physical.

 

[Fervent]

Of the ones you listed which came closest?

Or of all possible answers suggested which came closest?

It doesn't appear any of them got it 100% correct but if we're asking which seems closest, physicalism, though it's based on some unwarranted assumptions.

I don't find any of them particularly convincing, for a couple of different reasons. But the fact that there isn't a clear consensus answer demonstrates that the problem is still a problem and the reason it's not covered in the literature is no one seems to have a novel explanation that makes sense of the available data. So long as nobody asks the question, it doesn't need to be dealt with and can just gather dust on the shelves of scientific neglect.

You're assuming a couple of things here...

1. The question was asked in such a way it covered all possible answers.

2. All possible answers were given and therefore, the correct one can be found amongst them.

Remember....philosophy isn't really good at truth. If you did a survey of published philosophers....I think it's a 60/40 split or 70/30 split on "if the universe is real or a simulation."

You seem to not understand that I'm not engaged in "philosophy" here, but analytics. This isn't metaphysical speculation. I stated the problem as it exists in the literature, as it was formulated as a challenge for strong emergentism. It has received a great deal of attention in the literature, but there is no consensus answer just a firm commitment that somehow, someway, we just need more data and eventually it will sort itself out.

I'm not certain it ever was.



@Fervent ....you described this "problem" as a presumption earlier (or was it presupposition?) and I agreed it was...

No, the problem is an empirical conflict in the data. The presumption is the physicalist hypothesis that has been conflated with a principle of causal closure. There's no presumption about the problem, the problem is a recognized challenge that the reality of consciousness presents to scientific explanation. You seem to not comprehend what it is I have presented, and as such haven't raised any genuine objection to it.

Saying that it's a "problem" though is something else....

Can you tell me who this is a problem for and in what way it's a problem?

If you can do that....you'd have a good chance of me agreeing it's a problem.

If you can't do that...then even in some wild scenario where we both agree your solution "answers" the problem....I don't see it affecting our lives, or anyone else's, in any real way.

The literature is out there if you want to peruse it, but I'm not going to do the research for you. You seemed to imply you were aware of the problem already since you claimed that it stopped receiving attention for the last 15+ years but you don't seem to have a clear answer to it...so why did it stop being discussed even though no answer has come out? Or what is the answer that has come out?

Hegel....despite all the sophistry...argued the law of identity was nonsense. It presupposes all future states and there's no logical justification for this.

I tend to agree.

That is quite the denial. How can there be any truth if the law of identity is false? That's intellectual suicide.

Did you see the point I made about non-contradiction earlier?




1. Ok...can you just stop assuming it exists and state who this is a problem for?

If you can't....we can downgrade this from a "problem" to a "question". These both have answers.




Well why bother attempting an answer if science has already moved us far closer to the answer than hundreds of years of philosophy?




I didn't see any procedure. I saw a naked, unsupported claim that two different words meant the same thing. At this point...I'm unsure which words were part of your answer.

I hope it's not "physical and natural". As another poster already stated...as clearly as I did...physical is a subcategory of natural. If your solution is to simply deny this....claim that both mental and physical are natural and therefore the same thing....

Then why bring up the mental at all? Why not just admit that you agree this is a physical process? If it's the same as natural...we need not confuse anyone by referring to what is natural. It's all physical.

I've explained the procedure multiple times throughout the thread. It's a logical analysis of the terms involved, where I took one of the four propositions and restated it as two separate propositions so I could take one of them out. It's an analytic procedure that follows a set of set rules and is more or less an objective semantic test.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't find any of them particularly convincing, for a couple of different reasons. But the fact that there isn't a clear consensus answer demonstrates that the problem is still a problem and the reason it's not covered in the literature is no one seems to have a novel explanation that makes sense of the available data.

Is there any available data that suggests anything other than physicalism?

It's nice of you to mention it's existence but I want to see it myself if you don't mind. Data...not arguments.

So long as nobody asks the question, it doesn't need to be dealt with and can just gather dust on the shelves of scientific neglect.

Perhaps that's where it belongs if it causes no problems for anyone nor does any conceivable solution seem to matter.

Not every question is worth asking.

You seem to not understand that I'm not engaged in "philosophy" here, but analytics.

Oh ok...I'll put on my analytics hat.

This isn't metaphysical speculation.

Sure...perhaps your next post will include that data you mentioned earlier.

I stated the problem as it exists in the literature, as it was formulated as a challenge for strong emergentism.

This is philosophical literature.

It has received a great deal of attention in the literature, but there is no consensus answer just a firm commitment that somehow, someway, we just need more data and eventually it will sort itself out.

Probably more attention than it deserves.

No, the problem is an empirical conflict in the data.

Which is?

The presumption is the physicalist hypothesis that has been conflated with a principle of causal closure.

Isn't that exactly why you rejected it in the OP?

So it's a problem for you...specifically....because the answer is....emotionally unsatisfactory?

There's no presumption about the problem, the problem is a recognized challenge that the reality of consciousness presents to scientific explanation.

Scientists do sometimes get overzealous about how certain they can be of something....

Yet it's a process that yields desirable results.

The literature is out there if you want to peruse it, but I'm not going to do the research for you.

What are you talking about?

If you're claiming something that I disagree with (for example, data for a non-physical universe exists) then the onus is on you to justify your claims....not me.

Nice try though.

You seemed to imply you were aware of the problem

I'm familiar with the "mind body problem"....it's more of a question than a problem though.

Consider how little attention philosophy might have given it if it were merely "the mind-body question".

That is quite the denial. How can there be any truth if the law of identity is false?

State the law of identity as you understand it....then I'll explain it to you if you want.

I've explained the procedure multiple times throughout the thread.

Right....you offered something up in the OP. Claimed there was a conflict....and it's mostly born out of unnecessary assumptions.

It's a logical analysis of the terms involved, where I took one of the four propositions and restated it as two separate propositions so I could take one of them out.

When you did this....did you fundamentally change the original proposition in any way?

That is....when you restated one proposition as 2....did you alter that one proposition in any way? When you threw out one of the 2 new propositions that originated from the 1... did that change the original in any way?

 

[Fervent]

Is there any available data that suggests anything other than physicalism?

I'll bother addressing this, and only this. What is the definition of "physicalism" such that we can recognize evidence to the contrary? What does "Physical" mean, other than a meaningless catch-all? Does it mean what physics currently describes? Or some future, completely unknown, unfiied theory which nobody knows what it says? You deny interest in metaphysics, but it seems to me that denial is just so that you don't have to defend yours.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll bother addressing this, and only this. What is the definition of "physicalism" such that we can recognize evidence to the contrary?

Why are you asking me?

I don't know what non-physical evidence would look like....I've never seen it.

Imagine how remarkable your claims of "data" against the idea of physicalism are if you're asking me this...

Not only do you not have any data...you don't have any evidence.

What does "Physical" mean, other than a meaningless catch-all?

I offered an explanation to simplify it for you. You decided you didn't like it.

Would you like me to repeat the old answer I gave you or reword it in a new way?

Does it mean what physics currently describes?

No.

Or some future, completely unknown, unfiied theory which nobody knows what it says?

This already assumes too much.

You deny interest in metaphysics, but it seems to me that denial is just so that you don't have to defend yours.

Why would I have to defend mine?

I start with the axiom that objective reality exists. Truth then is the best understanding we have of that reality or a part of it at a given time. Best is described by accuracy to whatever thing we are attempting to truely describe....and not emotional satisfaction.

How did you start the OP? If we aren't committed to physicalism.....

I don't think anyone here is committed to physicalism. I think anyone who experiences the non-physical will believe in it. That's not a commitment to physicalism. We'd have to reject any non-physical evidence.

If you can't describe the physical....how about the mental?

Can you describe that?

How about we start with a simple question....is "north" a physical thing or mental thing?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's multiple ways to solve the 4 proposals....

1. Stop excluding mental causation. If we agree it can cause things and is itself not physical...there's no reason why proposal #1 excludes mental causation.

2. Describe mental causation as ultimately a physical process. Back to physicalism. Stop insisting on proposal #3 and accept the two are ultimately entangled.

3. Consider physical causation ultimately lacking and emotional/non-rational causes entirely likely. If I'm thirsty...I'm going to get a coke from the fridge. As there are currently a dozen possible choices to make...it's almost stupid to imagine that I'm not making these non-rational choices out of physical phenomena that manifested as thirst. To imagine a unique cause behind every possible coke instead of accepting the possibility of a free will choice is more than is necessary. Non-determinism. Some call this randomness but I don't see anything random about it...I was in a position to choose and I did.

4. Since all this is speculation, throw it away....there's no evidence in a constantly changing universe of a universal set of rules that won't change in the future. We can discard this as unknowable and therefore unnecessary to consider.

5. This is all a part of the "Thinking About Thinking Problem". It's something I just came up with...you won't find any literature on the subject, you'll just have to accept my expertise and therefore my explanation. Just as north is clearly a mental concept created to describe our movements in relation to the planet....if I told you that someone is sneaking up on your 4 o'clock...you'd probably look behind and to your right. Why? Because you orient the clock face so you are always looking towards 12. Nobody told you this...you always orient your perspective around yourself. The problem of thinking about thinking. Why don't you orient your perspective as if you were always facing 6? Nobody said you can't....but the direction would fail to communicate meaning. Is this a problem of perspective? Limitation of language? Abstraction becoming non-abstract? All results of the thinking about thinking problem. Don't worry about it...it's not going to change your perspective anyway. You'll still orient to 12.

 

[Fervent]

Why are you asking me?

I don't know what non-physical evidence would look like....I've never seen it.

Do you not believe that everything in some way comes down to the physical? If you don't know what "physical" means, then how can you be sure that any of the evdence we have is physical to begin with? I'm asking you because you're blatantly ignoring what's right between your ears. If you don't know what physical means, then you don't know if you've seen non-physical evidence or not. So what does physical mean, so we can distinguish it? Seems to me it's a meaningless catch-all, or an unjustified assumption being imposing upon where science can go with its answers.

 

[Fervent]

Here's multiple ways to solve the 4 proposals....

1. Stop excluding mental causation. If we agree it can cause things and is itself not physical...there's no reason why proposal #1 excludes mental causation.

2. Describe mental causation as ultimately a physical process. Back to physicalism. Stop insisting on proposal #3 and accept the two are ultimately entangled.

3. Consider physical causation ultimately lacking and emotional/non-rational causes entirely likely. If I'm thirsty...I'm going to get a coke from the fridge. As there are currently a dozen possible choices to make...it's almost stupid to imagine that I'm not making these non-rational choices out of physical phenomena that manifested as thirst. To imagine a unique cause behind every possible coke instead of accepting the possibility of a free will choice is more than is necessary. Non-determinism. Some call this randomness but I don't see anything random about it...I was in a position to choose and I did.

4. Since all this is speculation, throw it away....there's no evidence in a constantly changing universe of a universal set of rules that won't change in the future. We can discard this as unknowable and therefore unnecessary to consider.

5. This is all a part of the "Thinking About Thinking Problem". It's something I just came up with...you won't find any literature on the subject, you'll just have to accept my expertise and therefore my explanation. Just as north is clearly a mental concept created to describe our movements in relation to the planet....if I told you that someone is sneaking up on your 4 o'clock...you'd probably look behind and to your right. Why? Because you orient the clock face so you are always looking towards 12. Nobody told you this...you always orient your perspective around yourself. The problem of thinking about thinking. Why don't you orient your perspective as if you were always facing 6? Nobody said you can't....but the direction would fail to communicate meaning. Is this a problem of perspective? Limitation of language? Abstraction becoming non-abstract? All results of the thinking about thinking problem. Don't worry about it...it's not going to change your perspective anyway. You'll still orient to 12.

The trouble with this is your definition of physical in no way resembles the common-sense definition of physical, and there's no reason other than a metaphysical imposition to describe mental phenomena as physical events. It's simply an imposition on where the data can lead us, based on an unjustified hypothetical.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you not believe that everything in some way comes down to the physical?

I gave you an example of something I'd call mental. The concept of north. I'm not sure if it falls into the category of "belief" but if you want to put it there...that's fine.

If you don't know what "physical" means, then how can you be sure that any of the evdence we have is physical to begin with?

If you want to use another word in place of physical....be my guest...as long as we are talking about the same thing.

I'm asking you because you're blatantly ignoring what's right between your ears.

This seems like projection.

If you don't know what physical means, then you don't know if you've seen non-physical evidence or not.

I actually gave you a definition of physical to go along with the propositions.

Since no third category exists....we can call everything that exists apart from the mental as "physical".

See? Didn't even have to define it.

So what does physical mean, so we can distinguish it?

See above....or better....stop reading philosophy....or even better, lose the emotional need and attachment to the miraculous and magical world of religion.

 

[Fervent]

I gave you an example of something I'd call mental. The concept of north. I'm not sure if it falls into the category of "belief" but if you want to put it there...that's fine.

Is it or is it not an understanding of what "reality" is? An assumption about the natural. One that, as far as I can tell, you've provided no definition for but clearly has an implicit synthetic understanding.

If you want to use another word in place of physical....be my guest...as long as we are talking about the same thing.

That's kind of my point with this, it seems rather clear that mental phenomena do not fit into the current paradigm of "physical" but because of embedded physicalist metaphysics rather than going where the epistemics lead, many instead opt for ad hoc adjustments like your defining mental phenomena as events in a physical object. There's no reason, other than prior commitment to a metaphysical understanding, to do so. So my question is simply what is motivating people to cling so strongly to a metaphysical paradigm that requires such tortured epistemics to maintain? What is the benefit of appealling to such ad hoc maneuvers and ignoring heuristics like Occam's Razor?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it or is it not an understanding of what "reality" is?

What are you referring to here? The concept of "north"?

It's a conceptual description of a direction in relation to a subject and the planet. It disappears at the north pole...along with east and west. All directions become south.

What is north in the vastness of the universe? How about up or down? These directional descriptions exist in relation to subjects and objects. North of me doesn't mean anything if it's not in relation to some non-subjective object....like the planet. Once you understand that, you can know where north of me is.

Is north physical? Certainly in the sense that it doesn't exist in the vastness of space without any relationship to any fixed point it's not physical. Is it true that people live north of me? Yes. North is a relational direction and if you travel there, you'll surely find people. Does that make north physical? No. Does that make it mental? Yes. Can people have mental and physical reasons for traveling north? I don't see why not. Does that contradict the 4 proposals? I guess. Is it a problem? No. The mind-body problem was articulated long ago by people who held a much flimsier understanding of mental processes.

An assumption about the natural. One that, as far as I can tell, you've provided no definition for but clearly has an implicit synthetic understanding.

Look...pay attention to what you said in post # 246.

I've explained the procedure multiple times throughout the thread. It's a logical analysis of the terms involved, where I took one of the four propositions and restated it as two separate propositions so I could take one of them out. It's an analytic procedure that follows a set of set rules and is more or less an objective semantic test.

That's you breaking the law of identity.

You took the term you didn't like "physical" and replaced it with a different and far less meaningful term "natural".

When I offered you clearer definitions of "physical"...you rejected them for lack of adequacy. Fine.

Here's the problem with your "logic"....

You claimed this was a logical problem with years of literature (which we both know you haven't read) backing it up. Everyone else who already encountered this knows it's philosophy. I think it's ok though....because most philosophical problems are related to scientific problems.

Do you want everyone to approach the 4 propositions as if they are logically sound and well constructed? Or do you want us to consider what flaws exist in them which can be described using logic or evidence?

All you did was undefine a certain word.


The law of identity is a fundamental law of logic that states that a statement is true if it has been determined to be true.


That's a fair starting point for identity. None of those propositions are proven true tmk...that's why they are propositions.

If you are asking me and everyone else to treat these four as true....why are you trying to solve the problem by breaking the law of identity and fundamentally change any of these true proposals?

That's kind of my point with this, it seems rather clear that mental phenomena do not fit into the current paradigm of "physical"

You sure about this?

Did I mention the guy operating the computer with a brain implant?

How do you think that works? Seems obvious there must be some physical processes happening there. Consider your brain (well...maybe not yours) like any other sensory organ...limited in certain ways. Do your eyes see everything that can be seen? Nope. Do your ears hear everything that can be heard? Obviously not. Is it possible that when you think...you're unable to fully grasp the physical processes happening and despite the piles of evidence supporting it, you have to imagine some magical stuff is going on? You know, because just like the limits of your eyes and ears....your brain has limits on abstraction and understanding.

Isn't that possible?

There's no reason, other than prior commitment to a metaphysical understanding, to do so.

Well there's also the hard evidence.

So my question is simply what is motivating people to cling so strongly to a metaphysical paradigm that requires such tortured epistemics to maintain?

I already said I'd reject it as soon as you offer up some evidence to consider.

Your "logical analysis" fails the logical law of identity by treating a statement you insist as "true" (remember, if you doubt this, you can look through the literature you referred me to about 2 dozen times) as something you can simply change to shoehorn in any sort of emotionally satisfying explanation you prefer.

 

[Fervent]

What are you referring to here? The concept of "north"?

It's a conceptual description of a direction in relation to a subject and the planet. It disappears at the north pole...along with east and west. All directions become south.

What is north in the vastness of the universe? How about up or down? These directional descriptions exist in relation to subjects and objects. North of me doesn't mean anything if it's not in relation to some non-subjective object....like the planet. Once you understand that, you can know where north of me is.

Is north physical? Certainly in the sense that it doesn't exist in the vastness of space without any relationship to any fixed point it's not physical. Is it true that people live north of me? Yes. North is a relational direction and if you travel there, you'll surely find people. Does that make north physical? No. Does that make it mental? Yes. Can people have mental and physical reasons for traveling north? I don't see why not. Does that contradict the 4 proposals? I guess. Is it a problem? No. The mind-body problem was articulated long ago by people who held a much flimsier understanding of mental processes.







Look...pay attention to what you said in post # 246.

I've explained the procedure multiple times throughout the thread. It's a logical analysis of the terms involved, where I took one of the four propositions and restated it as two separate propositions so I could take one of them out. It's an analytic procedure that follows a set of set rules and is more or less an objective semantic test.

That's you breaking the law of identity.

You took the term you didn't like "physical" and replaced it with a different and far less meaningful term "natural".

When I offered you clearer definitions of "physical"...you rejected them for lack of adequacy. Fine.

Here's the problem with your "logic"....

You claimed this was a logical problem with years of literature (which we both know you haven't read) backing it up. Everyone else who already encountered this knows it's philosophy. I think it's ok though....because most philosophical problems are related to scientific problems.

Do you want everyone to approach the 4 propositions as if they are logically sound and well constructed? Or do you want us to consider what flaws exist in them which can be described using logic or evidence?

All you did was undefine a certain word.


The law of identity is a fundamental law of logic that states that a statement is true if it has been determined to be true.


That's a fair starting point for identity. None of those propositions are proven true tmk...that's why they are propositions.

If you are asking me and everyone else to treat these four as true....why are you trying to solve the problem by breaking the law of identity and fundamentally change any of these true proposals?


You sure about this?

Did I mention the guy operating the computer with a brain implant?

How do you think that works? Seems obvious there must be some physical processes happening there. Consider your brain (well...maybe not yours) like any other sensory organ...limited in certain ways. Do your eyes see everything that can be seen? Nope. Do your ears hear everything that can be heard? Obviously not. Is it possible that when you think...you're unable to fully grasp the physical processes happening and despite the piles of evidence supporting it, you have to imagine some magical stuff is going on? You know, because just like the limits of your eyes and ears....your brain has limits on abstraction and understanding.

Isn't that possible?



Well there's also the hard evidence.





I already said I'd reject it as soon as you offer up some evidence to consider.

Your "logical analysis" fails the logical law of identity by treating a statement you insist as "true" (remember, if you doubt this, you can look through the literature you referred me to about 2 dozen times) as something you can simply change to shoehorn in any sort of emotionally satisfying explanation you prefer.

Your understanding of what I did is so far removed from the actual case that I don't even know where to begin responding. I didn't break the law of identity in any way shape or form. The only thing I see evidenced here is an unwillingness to actually analyze the available data according to common epistemic principles and instead favoring elaborate ad hoc theories to preserve an existing paradigm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Also...please stop asking me to define physical. It not only gives away your lack of understanding of the 4 propositions but also gives away your motivation for the thread. You've said both....

So what does physical mean, so we can distinguish it? Seems to me it's a meaningless catch-all, or an unjustified assumption being imposing upon where science can go with its answers.

If that's an honest statement....then you don't believe the 4 proposals in the OP are true. Period.

Why you keep insisting everyone else does is beyond my imagination (it's not, I'm just trying to be nice).

Furthermore, why ask me this?

The trouble with this is your definition of physical in no way resembles the common-sense definition of physical

Did you want the commonsense definition? Would that matter regarding the 4 proposals? Do you think they're using the definition we understand now or just the one they understood back when the mind body problem was conceived?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your understanding of what I did is so far removed from the actual case that I don't even know where to begin responding. I didn't break the law of identity in any way shape or form. The only thing I see evidenced here is an unwillingness to actually analyze the available data according to common epistemic principles and instead favoring elaborate ad hoc theories to preserve an existing paradigm.

What epistemic principles are you using?

 

[Fervent]

Also...please stop asking me to define physical. It not only gives away your lack of understanding of the 4 propositions but also gives away your motivation for the thread. You've said both....

So what does physical mean, so we can distinguish it? Seems to me it's a meaningless catch-all, or an unjustified assumption being imposing upon where science can go with its answers.

If that's an honest statement....then you don't believe the 4 proposals in the OP are true. Period.

Why you keep insisting everyone else does is beyond my imagination (it's not, I'm just trying to be nice).

Furthermore, why ask me this?

The trouble with this is your definition of physical in no way resembles the common-sense definition of physical

Did you want the commonsense definition? Would that matter regarding the 4 proposals? Do you think they're using the definition we understand now or just the one they understood back when the mind body problem was conceived?

Hogwash. The 4 propositions aren't things to "believe", they're empirical seemings. The point of the exercise is to separate an empirically supported closure principle from a metaphysical hypothesis. It's an epistemic procedure, but it seems that some are so sold out on a metaphysical understanding that they're willing to let epistemics go by the wayside to preserve an insistence upon that metaphysics. My question is, what's motivating the resistance? It's clear that those who have objected don't really understand what I've said and done, as no substantive objections have been raised.

 

[Fervent]

What epistemic principles are you using?

Primarily Occam's razor and an aversion to ad hoc addendums