Causal exclusion problem

[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.

Right.

Lots of posters explained this to you. Would you prefer I lie? I always assumed that you Christians like honesty but hey...just say the word and I'll change my response to...

"Great answer for the OP. There's no way you got this wrong. Stop wasting your time here on CF, submit your doctorate thesis on this solution to the most prestigious philosophy/science professor you can find. Now get out there and be someone!"

I didn't break the law of identity in any way shape or form.

Are those 4 proposals true or not?

The only thing I see evidenced here is an unwillingness to actually analyze the available data

I haven't seen you offer up an iota of data.

Here's a list of words that don't confuse me or convince me of anyone's intelligence....

1. Epistemic.
2. Metaphysical.
3. Logical.
4. Analysis.

Using them in contexts and ways that don't make any sense won't impress anyone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hogwash. The 4 propositions aren't things to "believe", they're empirical seemings.

Do you believe those propositions are true or not?

 

[Fervent]

Right.

Lots of posters explained this to you. Would you prefer I lie? I always assumed that you Christians like honesty but hey...just say the word and I'll change my response to...

"Great answer for the OP. There's no way you got this wrong. Stop wasting your time here on CF, submit your doctorate thesis on this solution to the most prestigious philosophy/science professor you can find. Now get out there and be someone!"

There's been no explanations, though several have objected without understanding because it's clearly a metaphysical principle that I am attacking based on empirical statements. Your lack of understanding isn't a fault in the procedures, it's a comprehension issue on your part.

Are those 4 proposals true or not?

They certainly have a great deal of empirical support.

I haven't seen you offer up an iota of data.

I've referred to where the problem comes from, and have made it clear I'm not the one who developed the problem. Arguing over whether or not it is an extant problem obfuscates the issues at hand.

Here's a list of words that don't confuse me or convince me of anyone's intelligence....

1. Epistemic.
2. Metaphysical.
3. Logical.
4. Analysis.

Using them in contexts and ways that don't make any sense won't impress anyone.

I don't understand your purpose in saying they don't confuse you or convince you of intelligence. What difference does that make to the question at hand? Seems you're projecting something of yourself onto the issue. You seem to object to what I've said, but the objections you've tried to raise aren't substantive. They just obfuscate and kick up dust. All I've seen demonstrated in your replies is a lack of understanding.

Do you believe those propositions are true or not?

Questioning the propositions shows a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's been no explanations, though several have objected without understanding because it's clearly a metaphysical principle that I am attacking based on empirical statements.

What metaphysical principle are you attacking?

I don't see it or know it so kindly spit it out.

Also...you can just say principle, since it's obvious we're discussing "thinking".

No need to slap "metaphysical" in front of everything that you struggle to explain.

Your lack of understanding isn't a fault in the procedures, it's a comprehension issue on your part.

What procedures? You mentioned 4 propositions. You mentioned 0 procedures. Those are not the same words....they don't refer to the same things.

They certainly have a great deal of empirical support.

Well I haven't seen any. If you want to share some....I'd ask....but you have resisted every opportunity to share any so I won't bother.

I've referred to where the problem comes from,

And multiple people have corrected you.

It's a philosophical "problem".

and have made it clear I'm not the one who developed the problem.

Right...no, trust me, I understood from the OP on you haven't provided any of this on your own.

Arguing over whether or not it is an extant problem obfuscates the issues at hand.

If it's not an extant problem then there's no issues at hand.

What are these issues at hand if most of us (other than yourself) don't accept these propositions?

I don't understand your purpose in saying they don't confuse you or convince you of intelligence.

I'm trying to help you stop using them incorrectly.

What difference does that make to the question at hand? Seems you're projecting something of yourself onto the issue. You seem to object to what I've said, but the objections you've tried to raise aren't substantive. They just obfuscate and kick up dust. All I've seen demonstrated in your replies is a lack of understanding.

On this page alone...I've seen you argue that you're engaging in some sort of logical analysis of the 4 propositions....

Now you're saying that these aren't logical propositions....but empirical ones....

That's why this problem doesn't exist for most of us...you're trying to use logic on a handful of best guesses that nobody here holds true.

Questioning the propositions shows a lack of understanding on your part.

Sure.

It's my lack of understanding....for questioning "empirical propositions"....

Why wouldn't I question empirical propositions that don't fit the hard evidence? Probably because everyone else stopped believing in those propositions 15 years ago when the evidence started pouring in....that's a fair assumption.

What do you think "empirical propositions" are? Best guesses due to a lack of evidence or lack of ability to gain evidence? Or logical statements we can say are true?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hogwash. The 4 propositions aren't things to "believe", they're empirical seemings.

I'm sure they are empirical seeming, but at least one is hardly justified.

 

[Fervent]

What metaphysical principle are you attacking?

I don't see it or know it so kindly spit it out.

Also...you can just say principle, since it's obvious we're discussing "thinking".

No need to slap "metaphysical" in front of everything that you struggle to explain.

The physicalist hypothesis, the notion that everything that has causative efficacy in some way supervenes upon the physical. The beam that is so often sticking out of the eye of "skeptics".

What procedures? You mentioned 4 propositions. You mentioned 0 procedures. Those are not the same words....they don't refer to the same things.




Well I haven't seen any. If you want to share some....I'd ask....but you have resisted every opportunity to share any so I won't bother.




And multiple people have corrected you.

It's a philosophical "problem".




Right...no, trust me, I understood from the OP on you haven't provided any of this on your own.



If it's not an extant problem then there's no issues at hand.

What are these issues at hand if most of us (other than yourself) don't accept these propositions?




I'm trying to help you stop using them incorrectly.




On this page alone...I've seen you argue that you're engaging in some sort of logical analysis of the 4 propositions....

Now you're saying that these aren't logical propositions....but empirical ones....

That's why this problem doesn't exist for most of us...you're trying to use logic on a handful of best guesses that nobody here holds true.




Sure.

It's my lack of understanding....for questioning "empirical propositions"....

Why wouldn't I question empirical propositions that don't fit the hard evidence? Probably because everyone else stopped believing in those propositions 15 years ago when the evidence started pouring in....that's a fair assumption.

What do you think "empirical propositions" are? Best guesses due to a lack of evidence or lack of ability to gain evidence? Or logical statements we can say are true?

The issue is you're acting as if those propositions are things that I have brought to the table or that they have been fully explained with the data just because there has been relative silence about them. There is an insistence that we wll eventually find the answer to once and for all explain away consciousness as purely physical, but there's no real reason for believing such a thing and the amount of ad hoc reasoning that goes into preserving such a paradigm raises a lot of questions about notions of falsifiability. Physicalism is a philosophical hypothesis, and this problem(as drawn from literature on theories of mind) seems to be good reason to suspect that the philosophical understanding is mistaken.

 

[Fervent]

I'm sure they are empirical seeming, but at least one is hardly justified.

Considering your idea of "justified" seems to be nothing more than blatant confirmation bias, your estimation is easily taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Considering your idea of "justified" seems to be nothing more than blatant confirmation bias, your estimation is easily taken with a grain of salt.

You don't seem to agree with them either....making this entire thread an exercise of arguing against the long dead.

The physicalist hypothesis, the notion that everything that has causative efficacy

Physicalists? I'll be sure to let one know how smartly you've defeated them the moment I come across one....

I'll say "Did I hear you say you're a physicalist? This guy over on CF really tore your beliefs asunder."

The issue is you're acting as if those propositions are things that I have brought to the table

Am I going to see your name on the OP of this thread?

Who else "brought them to the table"?

or that they have been fully explained with the data

I don't think data came into the formation of those propositions.

just because there has been relative silence about them.

Relative? You're recommending books nearly 20 years old.

It's like arguing against the scientists who thought nobody would survive space travel....after we land on the moon.

That's another argument people don't really make anymore and I'll let you puzzle out why.

There is an insistence that we wll eventually find the answer to once and for all explain away consciousness as purely physical,

Where? Who is insisting this?

but there's no real reason for believing such a thing

In other words... you don't believe in the 4 propositions. What exactly did you solve then?

 

[Fervent]

You don't seem to agree with them either....making this entire thread an exercise of arguing against the long dead.

What are you talkiing about? The point of the problem is that all 4 propositions are well supported from direct experience. It's not a queston of "belief" and your focus on the propositions just shows your own lack of comprehension.

Physicalists? I'll be sure to let one know how smartly you've defeated them the moment I come across one....

I'll say "Did I hear you say you're a physicalist? This guy over on CF really tore your beliefs asunder."

THe knd of people who pretend that there's no metaphysics in their physics. The kid with a face full of crumbs saying, "What cookie?"

Am I going to see your name on the OP of this thread?

Who else "brought them to the table"?

The problem doesn't originate with me.

I don't think data came into the formation of those propositions.

Narrowly defining empiricism in such an unnatural fashion is nothing but enforcing confirmation bias.

Relative? You're recommending books nearly 20 years old.

It's like arguing against the scientists who thought nobody would survive space travel....after we land on the moon.

That's another argument people don't really make anymore and I'll let you puzzle out why.

So what is the theory of mind that has solved the problem? Just because there isn't much novel ground to cover doesn't mean the problem isn't still a problem.

Where? Who is insisting this?





In other words... you don't believe in the 4 propositions. What exactly did you solve then?

Again, they're not something to "believe" in. All that you are showing by talking about "believing" in the 4 propositons just shows you completely misunderstand what's been said. It's a comprehension faiilure on your part

 

[Hans Blaster]

Considering your idea of "justified" seems to be nothing more than blatant confirmation bias, your estimation is easily taken with a grain of salt.

I'm pretty sure you know which claim I don't think is justified, why do you think it is justified.

 

[Fervent]

I'm pretty sure you know which claim I don't think is justified, why do you think it is justified.

justified based on what? All 4 are experientially basic, and whichever one you believe not to be justified is more than likely nothing more than your metaphysical understanding that you deny having causing you to be suspicious of direct experience.

 

[Hans Blaster]

justified based on what? All 4 are experientially basic, and whichever one you believe not to be justified is more than likely nothing more than your metaphysical understanding that you deny having causing you to be suspicious of direct experience.

Direct experience of what? Non-physical mental activity? Sorry, never experienced that.

 

[Fervent]

Direct experience of what? Non-physical mental activity? Sorry, never experienced that.

If you want to deny the reality of your mind, that's up to you. But the only reason to do so is on the basis of an assumed metaphysical understanding.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you want to deny the reality of your mind, that's up to you.

I have no need to do that. My mind always takes the body with it. The sensations of sight are always frame from the point of view of the eyes in the body, etc. Nothing experiential suggests a non-body based "mental". Are you denying *my* experiences?

But the only reason to do so is on the basis of an assumed metaphysical understanding.

I've seen yours in action and it is strong in this thread.

 

[Fervent]

I have no need to do that. My mind always takes the body with it. The sensations of sight are always frame from the point of view of the eyes in the body, etc. Nothing experiential suggests a non-body based "mental". Are you denying *my* experiences?

And do you have any experiences of a physical world without mental phenomenon? I'm certainly not denying your experiences, but I am denything your interpretation that you seem to impose on those experiences. Is there science that doesn't in some way involve a human mind?

I've seen yours in action and it is strong in this thread.

Nope, my metaphysics don't factor in. Though I understand why you would assume they do, since you so thoroughly depend on confirmation bias that you've entirely lost sight of the assumptions you make about the world at large.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And do you have any experiences of a physical world without mental phenomenon? I'm certainly not denying your experiences, but I am denything your interpretation that you seem to impose on those experiences. Is there science that doesn't in some way involve a human mind?

The claim in the OP is that the "physical is not the mental". The claim is not that all knowledge we possess must be filtered through mental processes. They are not the same. "physical is not the mental" is claim that requires evidence.

Nope, my metaphysics don't factor in. Though I understand why you would assume they do, since you so thoroughly depend on confirmation bias that you've entirely lost sight of the assumptions you make about the world at large.

Now who's "blind"?

 

[Fervent]

The claim in the OP is that the "physical is not the mental". The claim is not that all knowledge we possess must be filtered through mental processes. They are not the same. "physical is not the mental" is claim that requires evidence.

Are your thoughts composed of particles? Can you touch, taste, smell, see, and hear your thoughts? The statement isn't a metaphysical one, it refers to experience itself at a basic level. The only reason to demand that something basic be "justified" is from an assumption. If something is fair to assume in everyday experience, it's fair to take as a basic fact. And if it wasn't fair to assume as much in everyday experiience there would be no such thing as a mind-body problem. Mental phenomena in no way, shape, or form, seem to be physical in nature. So what must be justified is the idea that they are in fact physical despite not displaying a single physical property.

Now who's "blind"?

Those who rely on academic consensus to dictate to them what is true about reality. Blind men leading blind men while denying the reality of their blindness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are your thoughts composed of particles?

And here I thought the physical model of mind involved electrochemical patterns in networks of neurons and not raising/lowering operators.

Can you touch, taste, smell, see, and hear your thoughts?

As if those are the only way to detect physical things. SMH.

The statement isn't a metaphysical one, it refers to experience itself at a basic level. The only reason to demand that something basic be "justified" is from an assumption. If something is fair to assume in everyday experience, it's fair to take as a basic fact.

Everyday experience? What are you going to invoke next? Common sense?

And if it wasn't fair to assume as much in everyday experiience there would be no such thing as a mind-body problem. Mental phenomena in no way, shape, or form, seem to be physical in nature. So what must be justified is the idea that they are in fact physical despite not displaying a single physical property.

You've fallen into the false dichotomy hole. Not being able to support "Mental is not physical" is not the same as claiming "Mental is physical". I thought you understood logic?

Those who rely on academic consensus to dictate to them what is true about reality. Blind men leading blind men while denying the reality of their blindness.

Isn't your claim that this "problem" and the related premises are part of some academic consensus? It is not I that claims connection to an academic philosophical consensus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What are you talkiing about? The point of the problem is that all 4 propositions are well supported from direct experience.

Most people don't consider the musings of a philosopher based upon their "direct experience" or more properly....their ability to self analyze their own mental processes as "well supported".

If I'm wrong and you do....you really shouldn't.

It's not a queston of "belief" and your focus on the propositions just shows your own lack of comprehension.

That is exactly a "question of belief". It's not a belief you or I or anyone else agrees with. It's something those writers who went silent 15+ years ago agree with.

THe knd of people who pretend that there's no metaphysics in their physics.

Kant....right? Was it Kant who rejected the metaphysical and said that it was nonsense?

You're putting me on par with Kant?

The problem doesn't originate with me.

You brought the problem to the table though.

This forum and thread are the table. You brought it here....hoping for some argument against someone who isn't here.

Narrowly defining empiricism in such an unnatural fashion is nothing but enforcing confirmation bias.

You just said it was direct experience. That's not data in my book. Sorry. There's a difference imo.

So what is the theory of mind that has solved the problem?

We already went over this.

Again, they're not something to "believe" in.

That is exactly what they are....if you don't believe they are correct or true, you need not contend with the contradiction.

Do you believe they are true?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Kant....right? Was it Kant who rejected the metaphysical and said that it was nonsense?

You're putting me on par with Kant?

Sorry, it was jab about me. The poster is bothered I don't care about whatever "metaphysics" they think should get in the way of my understanding of physics.