Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

Then don't use the word 'fear'.
Fear is an emotion.

Fear is more than just an emotion, though its historic usage is a bit antiquated.

My definition of knowledge is not the completely useless: 'justified true belief'.
I wanna test my beliefs before I claim having any knowledge.

Uh huh....so where is this justifiied true belief hiding? If it is justified and true, then it's not just a belief. So where is the knowledge that so many boast of?

The so-called 'Laws of Thought' you base this upon, are nothing more than word-salad.
Eg: they are completely useless in scientific enquiry.

And your entire epistemology is nothing but a circular argument. You claim to have justified true beliefs, but your claims of knowledge seem to disappear when asked to demonstrate the foundations of such knowledge.

So .. test the beliefs .. there's your 'foundation', right there!
Its better than making up yet another story ..

I've said nothing about methods of inquiry, and merely attacked a metaphysical belief that so-called skeptics try to pretend to not have. All I'm saying is take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in mine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not at all, it's a refusal to assume I know what reality is.
Those are two different statements. The first is a tautology, something that is true because it is self-referential. The second implies knowledge that isn't justified in adding "stuff" to the concept of existence. Logic requires two laws to proceed, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. God is First Principles, but without revelation from God we can say nothing about Him. "Does God exist?" is an incoherent question if we let the Bible define God since the name God gave to Moses is "I am=I am". I know two things with relative certainty, God exists in some form or fashion, and I am not God. The challenge is identifying the right God, not proving His existence.
It is a brute fact, and God is the brutest of facts. God is the statement that Truth=Truth. The question boils down to where we derive our brute facts from, do we pretend to know what is fundamentally true about reality or do we seek something external to ourselves to build our understanding upon?
Call it what you will, it's simpy a recognition of the reality of the debate at hand. Ultimately, my belief depends on faiith though I am open to hearing reasons to deny it. When I ask atheists for their reasons, the only thing they seem to be able to come up with is personal ignorance. I know God exists because I spend time with Him, I have a personal relatonship. He shows me things, we talk. I don't pretend to know how it works or have some systematiic understanding of it, but I do see how accurate the claim that the wisdom of God makes foolishness the wisdom of the wise when they tell me that they know what is true but then stick qualifiers on it like "approximate" as if there are degrees of truth. Truth is truth, everything else is mistaken.

This is just presuppositionalism. I have no interest in discussions built around assuming you are already correct and then making arguments for such. (You complained about circular arguements before, but this can go nowhere but in circles. I don't accept your base claim.

 

[SelfSim]

Fear is more than just an emotion, though its historic usage is a bit antiquated.

Nonsense.

Uh huh....so where is this justifiied true belief hiding? If it is justified and true, then it's not just a belief. So where is the knowledge that so many boast of?

And your entire epistemology is nothing but a circular argument. You claim to have justified true beliefs, but your claims of knowledge seem to disappear when asked to demonstrate the foundations of such knowledge.

'Justified true beliefs' has nothing to do with scientific knowledge, which is all about justification, is sketchy on truth, and is devoid of any need for belief. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences.
So "knowledge" boils down to 'track record' .. and nothing else. Certainly not 'justified true belief'.

Justification is everything in science. There is no need for it to be true (most of science is true to some degree, and false to some other degree), and there is no need for it to be believed .. the scientist can be well aware that he/she is committing idealization, and it is not belief that past results are a good guide to the future, that's simply the strategy of science. Belief is the opposite of skepticism.

I've said nothing about methods of inquiry, and merely attacked a metaphysical belief that so-called skeptics try to pretend to not have. All I'm saying is take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in mine.

And don't make the mistake of grouping me in with other folk, who may be assuming metaphyscial beliefs.
Focus on what I'm saying .. its likely not the same as what others are saying.

 

[Fervent]

Nonsense.

Not at all, "fear" historically was more akin to "respect" than being frightened.

'Justified true beliefs' has nothing to do with scientific knowledge, which is all about justification, is sketchy on truth, and is devoid of any need for belief. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences.
So "knowledge" boils down to 'track record' .. and nothing else. Certainly not 'justified true belief'.

The spin here is dizzying

Justification is everything in science. There is no need for it to be true (most of science is true to some degree, and false to some other degree), and there is no need for it to be believed .. the scientist can be well aware that he/she is committing idealization, and it is not belief that past results are a good guide to the future, that's simply the strategy of science. Belief is the opposite of skepticism.

Science doesn't bother with justification, it is a method of description coupled with an undefined ontology. The issue here is the metaphysics implied by scientific definition(that is to say the definition as "physical" or "matter" being the fundamental element of nature) that people presume to know before ever engaging in science is creating a roadblock in avenues of inquiry due to metaphysical commitments.

And don't make the mistake of grouping me in with other folk, who may be assuming metaphyscial beliefs.
Focus on what I'm saying .. its likely not the same as what others are saying.

I tend to take people for what they say and not try to group them into pre-defined categories. I take you at your word that you are a solipsist, but I am skeptical about how consistent you are with your solipsism.

 

[Fervent]

This is just presuppositionalism. I have no interest in discussions built around assuming you are already correct and then making arguments for such. (You complained about circular arguements before, but this can go nowhere but in circles. I don't accept your base claim.

I make no argument at all, my faith is built on a hope and a prayer. I have no interest to dissuade you of your firm commitment to a self-sabotaging epistemology, I lose nothing if you remain steadfast in your rebellion. The circularity of arguments is only a problem if I pretend my claims are based solely in reason alone, cause my confession is that reason is a leaky bucket. My hands are empty, I make no promises of knowledge I simply am pointing out that the cloth the emperors robes are made out of have no substance. I preach, I do not argue. What you do with it is between you and God.

 

[SelfSim]

The issue here is the metaphysics implied by scientific definition(that is to say the definition as "physical" or "matter" being the fundamental element of nature) that people presume to know before ever engaging in science is creating a roadblock in avenues of inquiry due to metaphysical commitments.

The terms 'physical' and 'matter' in science are usually only placeholder terms for measurable parameters which consistently and repeatedly 'test out' in science (ie: mass, volume, etc) and thereby form the basis of objective reality. There is no need to assume these measurables exist beforehand ... we regard them as objectively existing only after they've been successfully tested. These measurables are not logical imperatives. Science starts with no assumptions .. logic does .. but logic is not science.
You are confused about what distinguishes science from logic .. and science from philosophy.

I tend to take people for what they say and not try to group them into pre-defined categories. I take you at your word that you are a solipsist, but I am skeptical about how consistent you are with your solipsism.

Ha! Hilarious! I'm no Solipsist! I'm simply following the scientific process and testing out an hypothesis about the role human minds actively play in giving the words: 'exists', or 'reality', or 'physical' or 'matter', or 'nature', etc, their meanings, which is diametrically the opposite of this belief in the existence of some kind of mind independent reality, which is usually wrapped into the meanings of these words, due to the propensity of (and intellectual sloppiness of) people simply adopting beliefs, over doing science.

What you think is solipsism, is only because you are not thinking scientifically, therefore all you can see is philosophy ..

 

[Fervent]

The terms 'physical' and 'matter' in science are usually only placeholder terms for measurable parameters which consistently and repeatedly 'test out' in science (ie: mass, volume, etc) and thereby form the basis of objective reality. There is no need to assume these measurables exist beforehand ... we regard them as objectively existing only after they've been successfully tested. These measurables are not logical imperatives. Science starts with no assumptions .. logic does .. but logic is not science.
You are confused about what distinguishes science from logic .. and science from philosophy.

Those are metaphysical definitions, they aren't testable. Science can't be used to justify science, as that is nothing but a circular argument. And the assumed metaphysical definitions are not themselves testable through science.

Ha! Hilarious! I'm no Solipsist! I'm simply following the scientific process and testing out an hypothesis about the role human minds actively play in giving the words: 'exists', or 'reality', or 'physical' or 'matter', or 'nature', etc, their meanings, which is diametrically the opposite of this belief in the existence of some kind of mind independent reality, which is usually wrapped into the meanings of these words, due to the propensity of (and intellectual sloppiness of) people simply adopting beliefs, over doing science.

I had you confused with someone else I was having a conversation with. Those words you used are not equivalent, and that's the whole point of this exercise. We think of "concrete" objects as physical, and there's no reason to limit existence in such a way. It's playing on common sense understandings and imposing a metaphysical understanding onto what it is that science studies. It's an assumed ontology(or rather a defined ontology). Science as a method of inquiry is bound to produce successful theories, so long as there is some pseudo-mechanilcal operation to reality that allows for making generalized predictions.

What you think is solipsism, is only because you are not thinking scientifically, therefore all you can see is philosophy ..

Science doesn't stand on its own, and philosophy isn't simply untethered speculation. The philosophy I am pointing out is a presumption in scientific definitions about what the basic elements of reality are. What my exercise aims at is a metaphysical understanding and nothing more, it isn't an attack on scientific processes or modes of inquiry. Simply a metaphysical crutch that many who look to science to provide their lives with meaning and purpose lean heavily on and cannot even begin to question because their entire epistimology falls apart the minute they actually take the time to consider the question.

It's a game of hide the metaphysics, despising all metaphysics except ones own and never bothering to examine the footings.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fervent has been doing a good job trying to communicate René Descartes mind-body distinction. If anyone is interested in a more detailed explanation, they can find it here: Descartes, Rene: Mind-Body Distinction | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy If Fervent has already given references, I’m sorry if I missed them.

Is this still considered a real philosophical issue?

I can certainly understand why Descartes thought the "mind" was independent of the body....but since we now have a ton of evidence against this....nobody really believes in this view of the mind do they?

Is there such thing as a body without a mind? Absolutely. Corpses. Early stage embryo development wherein no brain matter exists. People kept alive by modern medical science and machines despite no brain activity.

Any examples of a mind without a body? I'll wait....

 

[Ana the Ist]

"It"???
I couldn't care less about accurate descriptions of what people believe in

Not sure what you're referring to here...

One has to hold a belief in an objective reality to begin any discussion of truth at all.

I'm not sure what else you think you're describing.

For goodness sake! You have no idea what useful *snip*

No...I asked you a simple question.

You're embarrassing yourself here.

If you can't answer....then you're the one unable to explain what science is useful for....not me.

I just explained it...it's useful for accurately describing an objective reality.

You're the one claiming that you don't believe in an objective reality (a belief that requires a belief in objective reality for you to hold true).....if so, what do you think science is useful for?

Non-answer incoming in 3....2....1....

 

[Ana the Ist]

The terms 'physical' and 'matter' in science are usually only placeholder terms

Wrong. Dark matter isn't testable. It's a "placeholder" for an aspect of objective reality that isn't testable and only exists in theory.

Science starts with no assumptions ..

You don't understand the history of science then.

logic does

You'd have to assume an objective reality exists to believe this is true.

.. but logic is not science.
You are confused about what distinguishes science from logic .. and science from philosophy.

You seem to have imagined science popping into existence without either logic or philosophy.

Ha! Hilarious! I'm no Solipsist!

Not even a solipsist would be more accurate.

I'm simply following the scientific process

No....you aren't.

and testing out an hypothesis about the role human minds actively play in giving the words: 'exists', or 'reality', or 'physical' or 'matter', or 'nature', etc, their meanings, which is diametrically the opposite of this belief in the existence of some kind of mind independent reality,

It's entirely contingent upon the existence of a mind independent reality.

which is usually wrapped into the meanings of these words, due to the propensity of (and intellectual sloppiness of) people simply adopting beliefs, over doing science.

This sounds like a disingenuous position.

What you think is solipsism, is only because you are not thinking scientifically, therefore all you can see is philosophy ..

"Thinking scientifically" can only happen if you assume that an objective mind independent reality exists....otherwise there's literally nothing to distinguish a scientific explanation from one made up by a child on a whim.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you think is solipsism, is only because you are not thinking scientifically, therefore all you can see is philosophy ..

If you claim that your name is "SelfSim".

And...

I claim your name is "SimpleSelf"....

Is one of us correct? Are neither of us correct? Is there no correct claim? Are both claims correct?

Are either of the claims "true" and if so....how would you know without first assuming that an objective reality exists? If not....what could you possibly hope to add to this discussion?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, tautologies are by definition true.

I'll go along with this without diving into Boolean logical propositions.

And God's existence is tautological, in that the only way to define God is by self-reference and not in terms of any prior.

Uhhh...well let's consider if this is falsifiable.

"God is an entity which is capable of creating universes."

I don't see why that's not a valid definition of "god"....or why any discussion of where such an entity comes from, what created it, or how it formed naturally is even a necessary element of the definition.

The word clearly changes the picture in questions of mind-body relationship in a substantial manner.

What questions do you think still exist in the mind-body relationship?

This is a problem within the mind-body discussion known as causal exclusion

Do you think that problem still exists?

That's what the question asks. Typically mind-body theorists will attack either distinctiness or causal overdetermination.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I didn't notice a contradiction.

I'll look again.

You can look into it, its a major source of discusson among mind-body theorists

I didn't think these people still existed lol.

Mind-body theorists lol.

When you consider what a "mind" is....

Are you defining it as the process of perceiving and thinking and the interplay between the two?

Or are you defining it as a thing (immaterial is my guess for how you would describe it) which performs the process described very generally above?

I understand I'm simplifying it a lot here but I don't see any way to discuss the entire process of consciousness without any simplification.

So I'm asking for the way you see it....

Mind= process
Or....
Mind= thing that does the process.

?

If there's some third option you think I'm missing, feel free to lay it out.

What, exactly, physical means isn't really all that clear when we look at the broad range that word covers.

Right but if we intend to discuss it in any meaningful sense (follow me here) we'll need to agree upon that meaning.

I'm willing to go with "thing which are tangible" and I know that gets messy at the quantum level but should suffice for non-physical (thoughts) and physical (brains).

This isn't really relevant to the discussion

Again, not relevant

It's only relevant if you're drawing some distinction between physical and natural.

If you aren't....fine.

No, Im speaking cause to cause.

Did you think this was a good response to the claim that you are conflating categories?

There is a presumption that mental activity has its origin in physical processes,

Yup....that is a presumption.

but since this problem can be solved

Above, you described a presumption...not a problem.

Would you mind describing the problem?

Obviously....you meant to describe a problem before you wrote the above....because you aren't conflating "presumptions" with "problems".

Go ahead and slip in the problem that your metaphysical presumption requires as a solution.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your keyboard type out your posts automatically?

No...my keyboard exists in objective reality. My mind didn't create it.

As for my posts, they exist in objective reality, again...my mind doesn't just will them into existence.

As for the physical processes of my body....we would describe these typically as the domain of subjective reality. If you're struggling for a clear delineation of where one ends and the other begins....just ask if it would exist without any subject dependent existence.

Before my posts were objectively created onto your screen into objective reality...they subjectively existed in my mind. They won't magically disappear even if my mind is destroyed tomorrow.

Fair enough?

Seems to be evidence right there, the only issue is a refusal to see it for what it is.

I thought you were suggesting that reality itself is subjectively created....which again, sounds like magic....and makes any proposal at understanding reality useless if true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

.... While formal logic is interesting, I had more in the mind the practical application of Informal Logic and the citation of various fallacies people all too often indulge in when attempting to justify their person points of view.

Isn't Russell's paradox something that exists in both formal and informal logic?

It just has a different name in one of them.

Regardless....

The fact that the paradox can be expressed both mathematically, as a formal logical proposition, and as a story about who a barber shaves and who he doesn't shave....doesn't mean the paradox expresses some grand fundamental limitation of reality and the wisdom of mankind has somehow captured this limitation in multiple ways.

I think it describes a limitation of our ability to understand reality and the boundaries placed on this understanding with different languages.

Does that make any sense?

I think there's a tendency to imagine that 1+1=2 was this fundamental step which inevitably led to other steps like calculus wayyyy down the line. Instead, it's probably true that these linguistic descriptions may be helpful at understanding our current limitations but also stand in the way of more elegant and potentially accurate models that we struggle to reach by the imposition of the current linguistics.

I know that's not a great explanation of what I'm getting at....it's something that occurred to me quite awhile back. The law of non-contradiction is great at understanding many aspects of reality until we come across something which defies the law of non-contradiction. At the point....anyone who has the intelligence to understand this thing must create a word or rewrite certain aspects of logic to make their understanding clear to others....and they'll almost certainly need new words to do it.

Maybe you've heard of the "millennium problems" and the million dollars to anyone who can solve one. A Fields Medal in mathematics is almost certainly a result of such a solution as well. To my knowledge, some Russian genius solved one and unless the article I read was exaggerating or I misunderstood....he sort of had to rewrite certain aspects of mathematics to do it. As such....it took the most brilliant mathematical minds over a year to understand his proof before admitting he had done it. He tried to teach it for awhile but as you can imagine.....he wasn't a great teacher and his small classes were mostly baffled. He wasn't interested in the million dollars and he retired from teaching rather quickly.

One might imagine that the solution would have been discovered long aho had er the words to describe it easily so long ago....for every sine and cosine I picture a loss of words impeding understanding.

I hope my original statement makes more sense now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Isn't Russell's paradox something that exists in both formal and informal logic?

It just has a different name in one of them.

Regardless....

The fact that the paradox can be expressed both mathematically, as a formal logical proposition, and as a story about who a barber shaves and who he doesn't shave....doesn't mean the paradox expresses some grand fundamental limitation of reality and the wisdom of mankind has somehow captured this limitation in multiple ways.

I think it describes a limitation of our ability to understand reality and the boundaries placed on this understanding with different languages.

Does that make any sense?

I think there's a tendency to imagine that 1+1=2 was this fundamental step which inevitably led to other steps like calculus wayyyy down the line. Instead, it's probably true that these linguistic descriptions may be helpful at understanding our current limitations but also stand in the way of more elegant and potentially accurate models that we struggle to reach by the imposition of the current linguistics.

I know that's not a great explanation of what I'm getting at....it's something that occurred to me quite awhile back. The law of non-contradiction is great at understanding many aspects of reality until we come across something which defies the law of non-contradiction. At the point....anyone who has the intelligence to understand this thing must create a word or rewrite certain aspects of logic to make their understanding clear to others....and they'll almost certainly need new words to do it.

Maybe you've heard of the "millennium problems" and the million dollars to anyone who can solve one. A Fields Medal in mathematics is almost certainly a result of such a solution as well. To my knowledge, some Russian genius solved one and unless the article I read was exaggerating or I misunderstood....he sort of had to rewrite certain aspects of mathematics to do it. As such....it took the most brilliant mathematical minds over a year to understand his proof before admitting he had done it. He tried to teach it for awhile but as you can imagine.....he wasn't a great teacher and his small classes were mostly baffled. He wasn't interested in the million dollars and he retired from teaching rather quickly.

One might imagine that the solution would have been discovered long aho had er the words to describe it easily so long ago....for every sine and cosine I picture a loss of words impeding understanding.

I hope my original statement makes more sense now.

Sure it makes sense, especially because it reflects the sort of things I've already been saying here for years, Ana. I'm glad you are familiar enough with Philosophy to have your feet wet on these issues.

Of course there are paradoxes; but a mere paradox such as Russell's doesn't excuse any discernible informal errors we may make in our thinking in the everyday discourses we have with other people, and it's those everyday errors (and sometimes those political ideologies) that ruin the application of Critical Thinking that I'm more concerned with.

 

[Fervent]

I'll go along with this without diving into Boolean logical propositions.




Uhhh...well let's consider if this is falsifiable.

Where did the condition of falsifiability enter the discussion? I'd suggest you read up on Agrippa's(or Munchaussen's) trilemma

"God is an entity which is capable of creating universes."

I don't see why that's not a valid definition of "god"....or why any discussion of where such an entity comes from, what created it, or how it formed naturally is even a necessary element of the definition.

It's an ill-defined definition because as far as we can discover there is only one universe that has been observed. So whether or not such a class of beings exists is a pretty big question. It is a statement that is void of real meaning, at least so long as our only means of exploration is by referring to the universe.

What questions do you think still exist in the mind-body relationship?

There are numerous existent problems, causal exclusion being one of them. Generally the association problem is taken to be the most challenging, but there is very little by way of actual explanation of consciousness currently in science.

Do you think that problem still exists?

It is one that has numerous very robust theories that attempt to explain it away. I think it's a serious challenge for any physicalist conception of reality, to the point of falsifying physicalist metaphysics.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I didn't notice a contradiction.

Essentially, if the only causes that are natural causes are physical then mental causation(that is thoughts having causal efficacy on the body) leads to overdetermination. The problem was articulated as an argument against supervenience and non-reductiionest physicalism(that is to say strong emergence) and is generally accepted as a serious challenge to any mind-body theory though the 'hard problem" of association tends to get more attention

I'll look again.




I didn't think these people still existed lol.

Mind-body theorists lol.

When you consider what a "mind" is....

Are you defining it as the process of perceiving and thinking and the interplay between the two?

Or are you defining it as a thing (immaterial is my guess for how you would describe it) which performs the process described very generally above?

I understand I'm simplifying it a lot here but I don't see any way to discuss the entire process of consciousness without any simplification.

So I'm asking for the way you see it....

Mind= process
Or....
Mind= thing that does the process.

All of this is based on metaphysical presuppositions. There's no reason to believe that mind is just a manifestation of a special arrangement of matter unless we presume that at base the world is physical. And that is nothing more than an unjustified assumption

?

If there's some third option you think I'm missing, feel free to lay it out.

My ontology is best described as a neutral monism, where neither mind nor body reduce or depend on the other but both depend on a more fundamental third which integrates the two.

Right but if we intend to discuss it in any meaningful sense (follow me here) we'll need to agree upon that meaning.

And there in lies the problem. It's not truth, it's just a commonly agreed upon fiction.

I'm willing to go with "thing which are tangible" and I know that gets messy at the quantum level but should suffice for non-physical (thoughts) and physical (brains).

Concrete, tangible, et cetera don't seem to circumscribe the total picture of existence. Thoughts aren't really tangible and concrete, and we can't avoid discussing questions like the existence of abstract objects. Treating thoughts as nothing more than an extension of physical matter is what this analysis is aimed at dissuading, though I offer no theoretical explanation of my own. Simply pointing out that the metaphysical presumption of materialism/physicalism leads to a conflict in our observations.

It's only relevant if you're drawing some distinction between physical and natural.

It seems that there is a real distinction between the two, which is the point of this analysis. Based on the causal exclusion problem, it seems that physical is not a sufficient word to circumscribe natural phenomenon.

If you aren't....fine.

I don't think you understand what I have done here, because I'm not arguing anything I have simply performed semantic analysis. I've taken something that is accepted as a challenge for scientific theories of mind and has a robust amount of literature attempting to explain it and removed the conflict among the four propositons by examining the terms. It's semantic analysis and boils down to word-concept relationships. This isn't a problem I created or made up for this exercise. So it's not me making the distinction, it's the analytic process.

Did you think this was a good response to the claim that you are conflating categories?

Yes, because I am addressing a single category which is causation.

Yup....that is a presumption.

Well, glad we agree on that much.

Above, you described a presumption...not a problem.

I took a problem that is generally accepted as a real problem for scientific theories of mind and has a robust literature of responses and by re-arranging the terms resolved the conflict in the propositions. It's semantic analysiis and nothing more, I haven't proposed any sort of alternative(though I do of course have my own ideas) I have simply proferred the suggestion that the problem lies in our terms.

Would you mind describing the problem?

I have already, I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want the full description, you can read the argument as it was suggested by Jaegwan Kim and all of the subsequent responses that have been proferred among scientific theories of mind.

Obviously....you meant to describe a problem before you wrote the above....because you aren't conflating "presumptions" with "problems".

Not at all, I've done nothing more than a bit of semantic analysis on a generally accepted challenge to scientific theories of mind which has a robust amount of literature trying to explain away the problem. The only thing I've done is examine the terms of the problem to suggest that the problem lies not in the observations but in the terms that we are using. It's all about word-concept relationships and nothing more.

Go ahead and slip in the problem that your metaphysical presumption requires as a solution.

I've made no metaphysical presumption, I've simply performed a semantic analysis. I've suggested a solution to a problem that is widely regarded as a genuine challenge to any scientific theory of mind second only to the association problem.

No...my keyboard exists in objective reality. My mind didn't create it.

Certainly not, but the words that it has produced are surely a product of your mind, are they not? Or are you suggesting that you are nothing more than a wind-up toy of mindless physical action-reaction procedures? Did your intentions move your fingers along the keyboard, or are you simply aping conscious activity?

As for my posts, they exist in objective reality, again...my mind doesn't just will them into existence.

Uh huh...so there is no mental activity involved in them? They're just chemical and electrical noise with no real semantic significance?

As for the physical processes of my body....we would describe these typically as the domain of subjective reality. If you're struggling for a clear delineation of where one ends and the other begins....just ask if it would exist without any subject dependent existence.

"domain of subjective reality"? Now you're getting into some strange territory that requires torturing the terms. Why tye yourself into mental pretzels to insist upon a physical foundation for reality?

Before my posts were objectively created onto your screen into objective reality...they subjectively existed in my mind. They won't magically disappear even if my mind is destroyed tomorrow.

And down the road of madness you go.

Fair enough?

Nope, it's nothing more than tying yourself into semantic knots that are wholly unnecessary.

I thought you were suggesting that reality itself is subjectively created....which again, sounds like magic....and makes any proposal at understanding reality useless if true.

Not at all, I'm merely suggesting that there is an empirical case against physicalist metaphysical presumptions. I'm making no suggestion of my own for what or how reality exists, though of course I do have my own ideas about it. I've performed philosophical analysis, and it confuses some people because what I have done is not to engage in metaphysics of my own but simply to engage in epistemics. If I have made an argument, which I don't believe I have, it is an epistemic one. I've done no metaphysical speculation of my own, though at points in the thread my metaphysics have been relevant to my replies.

 

[Jerry N.]

I'm actually not articulating dualism of any sort, my position is neutral monism. Both the mental and the physical obtain on a third fundamental element. I call it Pneuma, Spirit, or Soul. An atheist would likely call it Form or Information or some other impersonal term.

I didn’t mean to imply that everything you wrote referred to Descartes, but much of what you wrote explains the relationship between the body and mind or the body and soul Descartes tried so hard to communicate. He promoted dualism, and I understand your tripartite view and agree. However, it wasn’t the dualism I was referring to, it was the interaction of the metaphysical and the physical in the mind. I meant it as a compliment to your writing and a way to encourage the others to consider Descartes’ ideas.

 

[Fervent]

I didn’t mean to imply that everything you wrote referred to Descartes, but much of what you wrote explains the relationship between the body and mind or the body and soul Descartes tried so hard to communicate. He promoted dualism, and I understand your tripartite view and agree. However, it wasn’t the dualism I was referring to, it was the interaction of the metaphysical and the physical in the mind. I meant it as a compliment to your writing and a way to encourage the others to consider Descartes’ ideas.

Ah, yeah that's fair to say. I followed similar processes to Descartes regarding skeptical inquiry, but my analysis doesn't depend on a particular metaphysical conception. It just depends on word-concept relationships. It's not speculative philosophy about metaphysics, it's analytic philosophy about semantics and how the words we use relate to how we understand reality.

 

[Jerry N.]

Ah, yeah that's fair to say. I followed similar processes to Descartes regarding skeptical inquiry, but my analysis doesn't depend on a particular metaphysical conception. It just depends on word-concept relationships. It's not speculative philosophy about metaphysics, it's analytic philosophy about semantics and how the words we use relate to how we understand reality.

I understand, and you did a good job.

 

[SelfSim]

Wrong. Dark matter isn't testable. It's a "placeholder" for an aspect of objective reality that isn't testable and only exists in theory.

Not so: Detection of dark Matter particles.

You don't understand the history of science then.

You have no idea of what I understand. You have presented no evidence to support that claim.
Show me where the scientific method, (published everywhere and taught widely), starts out with:
'Step (1): Assume the existence of a mind independent reality;'

You'd have to assume an objective reality exists to believe this is true.

Nope.

You seem to have imagined science popping into existence without either logic or philosophy.

Nope.

No....you aren't.

Welcome to the Mind (model) Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis.
PS: More here

It's entirely contingent upon the existence of a mind independent reality.

No. that notion appears to result from a tightly held belief in Realism.
There are other ways to think about reality, which often return surprising results. None of those ways are necessary preconditions to the scientific method.
See the MDR hypothesis link above. Also see Model Dependent Realism.

This sounds like a disingenuous position.

'What it sounds like', usually signifies that what follows, is an opinion tightly wrapped up in the claimant's undistinguished perception bias.

I should clarify by offering the following operational test one may apply, in order to distinguish 'beliefs':

'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Objective tests followed by the application of logic rules is a necessary condition).

One such example is here in this thread.

"Thinking scientifically" can only happen if you assume that an objective mind independent reality exists....otherwise there's literally nothing to distinguish a scientific explanation from one made up by a child on a whim.

See operational definition of a belief.
Science distinguishes beliefs by attempting to test them and proceeds by treating them with neutrality, where they are not testable.

Oh .. and science never tests 'the thing itself'. Science tests its models.