Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2017, 01:50 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 02:08 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:16 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  It allows him to sneak in his “necessary being”.

Then why was I a dualist before I accepted the necessary being? This seems like an unjustified accusation.

I didn’t know that. What did you call it beforehand?

I’d like to quote Girlyman on this one.

"Plausible is generally accepted to mean a coherent explanation, as judged by a reasonable individual, of how the mind could possibly exist without the body and how they could possibly interact. Arguments for dualism are not only untenable, they are generally incoherent.”

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
08-02-2017, 01:53 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism cannot explain the introspective nature of the mind. It doesn't even include minds at all. Consciousness is left ignored in materialist thought.

Something not being explained yet doesn't mean that it is being ignored; it only means that we don't fully understand it yet. Every example we have of consciousness is tied to a physical, functioning brain. We are beginning to learn how to match brain states to various thoughts. There's certainly a LONG way to go yet but the only way we know of to get actual answers to what is going on is by following the evidence.

What dualism is proposing is some "other" thing that we have never detected outside brains and yet interacts easily within brains. Since whatever it is has a physical effect on the brain it should be possible to demonstrate that effect happening and then to identify the mechanism involved. It should be possible to create something that is not a brain and yet interacts with this "substance". When somebody demonstrates any of that I'll consider dualism as a possibility but without evidence I'll let Occam's Razor eliminate it as an unnecessary complication to an already complex subject.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
08-02-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:33 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's evidenced that the universe is the only thing one can refer to as external? I'm a dualist. I don't think the physical is the only substance. I've generally been drawn towards substance dualism, but I acknowledge some uncertainty in this area.

Still asking the wrong questions.

What is external to you is a matter of having a coherent definition of the word "external". Evidence only enters into it insofar as you need to look at an entity to see if it fits that definition.

Solipsism, dualism, materialism, and so on are all ontological positions. Ontological positions are, by their very nature, exclusively semantic.

Ontology is not merely semantic. It's the nature of reality. We have to get past viewing words as meaningless. If we're consistent with definitions, then there's no problem. Your mind is an example of something that is external to me but not physical.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 02:01 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Still asking the wrong questions.

What is external to you is a matter of having a coherent definition of the word "external". Evidence only enters into it insofar as you need to look at an entity to see if it fits that definition.

Solipsism, dualism, materialism, and so on are all ontological positions. Ontological positions are, by their very nature, exclusively semantic.

Ontology is not merely semantic. It's the nature of reality. We have to get past viewing words as meaningless. If we're consistent with definitions, then there's no problem. Your mind is an example of something that is external to me but not physical.

Words aren't external to the senses. They are man-made inventions that are derived from the senses. So you seem to be complaining about the ability of the pragmatist and the materialist to use their senses to evaluate the universe around them, but then want to argue over whether or not words have objective meaning?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 02:07 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:45 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Contingent being": an entity that needs an explanation for its existence.

"Necessary being": an entity that does not.

Assigned to the universe and the supposed creator deity, respectively. They are also just formalized bare assertion and special pleading, but there you are.

So Naiellis is a pragmatist when it comes to their "necessary being" in that they believe it requires no explanation and begs no additional questioning because in their mind the universe works only through the assumption that such a being exists?

Sounds like the "first cause/mover" argument wrapped around the special pleading of "I don't have to show you any evidence. It exists because I say so."

That's because that's exactly what it is.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 02:09 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Ontology is not merely semantic.

Yes, it is.

(08-02-2017 01:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's the nature of reality.

This is a meaningless statement, due to - you guessed it - poor semantics.

"The nature of reality" is that it exists and is external to us. All valid ontological positions are simply different ways of phrasing this. All invalid ones are those that try to say that ontology can be more than semantic, overreach their bounds, and try to attach incoherent riders to this, like "reality is consciousness".

Ontology is the process of assigning names to that which is real. It is semantic.

(08-02-2017 01:59 PM)Naielis Wrote:  We have to get past viewing words as meaningless. If we're consistent with definitions, then there's no problem.

That is exactly the point, yes.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 02:13 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 01:53 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:41 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism cannot explain the introspective nature of the mind. It doesn't even include minds at all. Consciousness is left ignored in materialist thought.

Something not being explained yet doesn't mean that it is being ignored; it only means that we don't fully understand it yet. Every example we have of consciousness is tied to a physical, functioning brain. We are beginning to learn how to match brain states to various thoughts. There's certainly a LONG way to go yet but the only way we know of to get actual answers to what is going on is by following the evidence.

What dualism is proposing is some "other" thing that we have never detected outside brains and yet interacts easily within brains. Since whatever it is has a physical effect on the brain it should be possible to demonstrate that effect happening and then to identify the mechanism involved. It should be possible to create something that is not a brain and yet interacts with this "substance". When somebody demonstrates any of that I'll consider dualism as a possibility but without evidence I'll let Occam's Razor eliminate it as an unnecessary complication to an already complex subject.

It's not that it has yet to explain. It's that it can't explain it. Minds are inherently immaterial. Materialism cannot explain that which it denies. But you acknowledge that the brain affects consciousness. This is completely consistent with dualism. The physical is interacting with and influencing the aphysical. The simple fact that you have experiences is proof of dualism. Many philosophers are moving towards supervenience physicalism. This is where all truth is entailed by the physical aspect of something. I would say it's very similar to epiphenomenalism. You seem to be operating from this. The physical aspects of the brain entail the state of the mind.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 02:16 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 02:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's not that it has yet to explain. It's that it can't explain it. Minds are inherently immaterial.

Bare assertion, straw man.

Minds are brain activity. Brain activity is a process. This poses no more of a problem for materialism than running, or the execution of a computer program.

(08-02-2017 02:13 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The simple fact that you have experiences is proof of dualism.

No.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 02:16 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 02:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is.

No it isn't.

Quote:This is a meaningless statement, due to - you guessed it - poor semantics.

"The nature of reality" is that it exists and is external to us. All valid ontological positions are simply different ways of phrasing this. All invalid ones are those that try to say that ontology can be more than semantic, overreach their bounds, and try to attach incoherent riders to this, like "reality is consciousness".

Ontology is the process of assigning names to that which is real. It is semantic.

So internalists can't have valid metaphysics? Why?


Quote:That is exactly the point, yes.

If words have meaning, then language is irrelevant. It's the content of the words that matters.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 02:19 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(08-02-2017 02:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

And before you waste more time: the difference between us is that I actually understand ontology and its limits. You do not. Repeating "no it isn't" when I took the rest of my post to justify my statement is pointless.

(08-02-2017 02:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:This is a meaningless statement, due to - you guessed it - poor semantics.

"The nature of reality" is that it exists and is external to us. All valid ontological positions are simply different ways of phrasing this. All invalid ones are those that try to say that ontology can be more than semantic, overreach their bounds, and try to attach incoherent riders to this, like "reality is consciousness".

Ontology is the process of assigning names to that which is real. It is semantic.

So internalists can't have valid metaphysics? Why?

Internalists do not have valid definitions.

Because they are non-functional. The terms become worthless for actual use. All that it results in, at best, is someone inventing a new word to describe the same difference in characteristics that the originals were intended to.

At best, solipsism just requires that we come up with a new way of phrasing the same thing. It is inherently nothing but a semantic quibble, and denotes exactly no relevant characteristics of the thing that we are attempting to describe.

(08-02-2017 02:16 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
Quote:That is exactly the point, yes.

If words have meaning, then language is irrelevant.

This statement is so incredibly incoherent that I cannot honestly believe that you meant to say it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: