Is the mind material or non-material?

[Togo]

-You're claiming that philosophy is not equipped to investigate physical phenomenon. Agreed. It's not about investigating physical phenomena.
-You believe philosophy uses science as it's foundation. This is false. Philosophy doesn't typically use assumed foundations in the same was as science. It examines it's own precepts very very carefully. Hence my example.
- You believe that philosophy follows from scientific discovery. I don't. I'd like to see some evidence of this happening in practice. Do you have any philosophical articles or papers that you can show follow from the associated science?
-Citing a paper you consider irrelevant isn't a strawman, unless you can demonstrate that I tried to represent the paper as somehow being your opinion. If you can identify what you believe the strawman is, that would help.

 

[DBT]

-You're claiming that philosophy is not equipped to investigate physical phenomenon. Agreed. It's not about investigating physical phenomena.

The brain/mind is a physical phenomena, so if philosophy has any intentions of discussing or inquiring into nature of the mind, the mind being a physical phenomena of a brain, this is an instance of an investigation into a physical phenomena.

-You believe philosophy uses science as it's foundation. This is false. Philosophy doesn't typically use assumed foundations in the same was as science. It examines it's own precepts very very carefully. Hence my example.

That is true. It can be seen in many instances throughout human history. That is why we have theology, ontology, etc, including countless examples of false conclusions that were made by philosophers who 'examined their own precepts' without regard to objective testing.

Understanding the objective world objective requires empirical observation and testing combined with reason. The latter being based on the former. Holding a belief or examining one's own precepts is not enough, as one has to provide testable hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable.

- You believe that philosophy follows from scientific discovery. I don't. I'd like to see some evidence of this happening in practice. Do you have any philosophical articles or papers that you can show follow from the associated science?

Plenty of examples...just a quick grab:

Alexander Spirkin
''Can philosophy develop by itself, without the support of science? Can science "work" without philosophy? Some people think that the sciences can stand apart from philosophy, that the scientist should actually avoid philosophising, the latter often being understood as groundless and generally vague theorising. If the term philosophy is given such a poor interpretation, then of course anyone would agree with the warning "Physics, beware of metaphysics!" But no such warning applies to philosophy in the higher sense of the term. The specific sciences cannot and should not break their connections with true philosophy.''

''Science and philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalisations''

More;
''Rather, philosophy has two major contributions to make to cognitive science: generality and normativity. By generality I mean that philosophical reflections attempt to answer questions that are broader than those usually pursued by researchers in particular disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, and artificial intelligence. Philosophical generality is especially crucial for an interdisciplinary field such as cognitive science, in that it can attempt to address questions that cross multiple areas of investigation, thereby helping to unify what otherwise appear to be diverse approaches to understanding mind and intelligence. I will provide examples of how philosophy can aim to answer general questions about the investigation of mind that inevitably arise in the most ambitious scientific investigations of thought''

-Citing a paper you consider irrelevant isn't a strawman, unless you can demonstrate that I tried to represent the paper as somehow being your opinion. If you can identify what you believe the strawman is, that would help.

It wasn't just the paper. A few of your remarks indicate that you haven't grasped what I'm saying about the relationship between philosophy and science....that it is philosophy that draws information from science, as it must if it's to stay grounded in reality and not go off with the pixies: the heart is the seat of human consciousness, yada, yada.

 

[steve_bnk]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

 

[DBT]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

How are we to know?

 

[Juma]

This is the difference between philosophy and science:
Philosophy is the act of organizing the information we already have.
Science is the act of increasing the amount of trustworthy information.

 

[Kharakov]

Science, it's not an act.

Show

not an act means "not a sham"

And really, you're totally wrong about science (not surprised considering where it's coming from).

Scientific pursuits decrease the amount of non-trustworthy information, they do NOT add to the total information of the system (entropic information principle). The information already exists in reality- all of it. We use the scientific method to whittle away at the bullshit and incorrect ways of seeing things (such as your rather ignorant view that "science increases the amount of trustworthy information).

 

[arkirk]

I am surprised at the conflict over what is a philosophy. We all are philosophers in that we all have philosophical views. The scientist's philosophy is that one must accept experimental evidence...then reexamine the controls applied to the experiment and the possibilities of error in measurement and in interpretation of data. Okay. If he does not have a firm and demanding regimen in his observations, he can be in error.

Nevertheless, his arguments regarding philosophy are philosophical arguments...the same definition as that of the Bible Thumpers. It is his evidence however that qualifies his argument as philosophical argument backed by actual experience...replicatable experience.

 

[Juma]

Scientific pursuits decrease the amount of non-trustworthy information, they do NOT add to the total information of the system (entropic information principle). The information already exists in reality- all of it.

Yeah, but you may, or may not, realize that trustworthyness is not mentioned in the entropic information principle.

 

[DBT]

I am surprised at the conflict over what is a philosophy. We all are philosophers in that we all have philosophical views. The scientist's philosophy is that one must accept experimental evidence...then reexamine the controls applied to the experiment and the possibilities of error in measurement and in interpretation of data. Okay. If he does not have a firm and demanding regimen in his observations, he can be in error.

Nevertheless, his arguments regarding philosophy are philosophical arguments...the same definition as that of the Bible Thumpers. It is his evidence however that qualifies his argument as philosophical argument backed by actual experience...replicatable experience.

I don't know, I tend to think of science as a methodology rather than a philosophy - observation, testing, repeatability, peer review....

 

[Togo]

The brain/mind is a physical phenomena, so if philosophy has any intentions of discussing or inquiring into nature of the mind, the mind being a physical phenomena of a brain, this is an instance of an investigation into a physical phenomena.

Too much of a stretch, I think. Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.

Think of it like maths. You wouldn't argue that in order to calculate the statistical significance of an observation, you'd have to investigate the phenomenon behind it, would you? Why would philosophy be any different?

-You believe philosophy uses science as it's foundation. This is false. Philosophy doesn't typically use assumed foundations in the same was as science. It examines it's own precepts very very carefully. Hence my example.

That is true. It can be seen in many instances throughout human history. That is why we have theology, ontology, etc, including countless examples of false conclusions that were made by philosophers who 'examined their own precepts' without regard to objective testing.

Again, science works by constantly refining previous scientific conclusions that are found to be false. The history of all though is countless false conclusions. What's your point?

Understanding the objective world objective requires empirical observation and testing combined with reason. The latter being based on the former. Holding a belief or examining one's own precepts is not enough, as one has to provide testable hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable.

You're still sneaking in a value judgement with your 'is not enough' (enough for what?). Philosophy is not trying to come to conclusions about the objective world, or to understand it.

- You believe that philosophy follows from scientific discovery. I don't. I'd like to see some evidence of this happening in practice. Do you have any philosophical articles or papers that you can show follow from the associated science?

Plenty of examples...just a quick grab:

Alexander Spirkin
''Can philosophy develop by itself, without the support of science? Can science "work" without philosophy? Some people think that the sciences can stand apart from philosophy, that the scientist should actually avoid philosophising, the latter often being understood as groundless and generally vague theorising. If the term philosophy is given such a poor interpretation, then of course anyone would agree with the warning "Physics, beware of metaphysics!" But no such warning applies to philosophy in the higher sense of the term. The specific sciences cannot and should not break their connections with true philosophy.''

''Science and philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalisations''

So your example of philosophy following science is an article where science and philosophy work together?

Maybe I've missed your position - are you happy with the idea that science learns from philosophy, or do you disagree with your own source here?

url=http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/whycogsci.2009.pdf] More;[/url]
''Rather, philosophy has two major contributions to make to cognitive science: generality and normativity. By generality I mean that philosophical reflections attempt to answer questions that are broader than those usually pursued by researchers in particular disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, and artificial intelligence. Philosophical generality is especially crucial for an interdisciplinary field such as cognitive science, in that it can attempt to address questions that cross multiple areas of investigation, thereby helping to unify what otherwise appear to be diverse approaches to understanding mind and intelligence. I will provide examples of how philosophy can aim to answer general questions about the investigation of mind that inevitably arise in the most ambitious scientific investigations of thought''

And here is an example, discussing what philosophy can provide to science that's valuable and useful, by dealing with matters that science does not. How does this support your claim?

-Citing a paper you consider irrelevant isn't a strawman, unless you can demonstrate that I tried to represent the paper as somehow being your opinion. If you can identify what you believe the strawman is, that would help.

It wasn't just the paper. A few of your remarks indicate that you haven't grasped what I'm saying about the relationship between philosophy and science.

Maybe not - certainly your sources seem to contradict the position that philosophy somehow necessarily follows on from or is dependent on science is some way. Granted that you appear to believe that philosophy not dependent on science is useless, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. You're welcome to have your own opinions about the worth of things, but it seems odd to argue not just that philosophy should always be based on science, but that it already is, despite examples to the contrary.

However, a strawman argument is not simply a misunderstanding. It's taking a different one from the argument you are actually making, pretending that it is the argument you are making, refuting that argument, and then pretending that your position has been refuted. Can you please point to where this was done, or withdraw or modify the claim?

 

[DBT]

Too much of a stretch, I think. Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Think of it like maths. You wouldn't argue that in order to calculate the statistical significance of an observation, you'd have to investigate the phenomenon behind it, would you? Why would philosophy be any different?

We are not talking about statistics.

Again, science works by constantly refining previous scientific conclusions that are found to be false. The history of all though is countless false conclusions. What's your point?

The point? That the scientific method is the primary source of our understanding of the physical world and philosophical inquiry must relate to scientific information.

''If science may be said to be blind without philosophy, it is true also that philosophy is virtually empty without science''

You're still sneaking in a value judgement with your 'is not enough' (enough for what?). Philosophy is not trying to come to conclusions about the objective world, or to understand it.

I've already explained the significance of 'not enough' several times in this thread, ie, the pitfalls of reason without objective testing: the heart being the seat of human consciousness, according to ancient Greek thinkers, etc.

So your example of philosophy following science is an article where science and philosophy work together?

I've never claimed that philosophy and science cannot work together. I said philosophy must include science. Science being the primary source of our information, physics, neuroscience, etc, about the physical world. For example, philosophy should not inquire into the nature of mind without reference to the nature of the brain (neuroscience) if it's to be a valid and accurate philosphical inquiry.

Maybe I've missed your position - are you happy with the idea that science learns from philosophy, or do you disagree with your own source here?

Maybe you also missed the quote: Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalizations'' - science being the primary source of discoveries related to the physical world.

And here is an example, discussing what philosophy can provide to science that's valuable and useful, by dealing with matters that science does not. How does this support your claim?

Philosophy deals with the moral, ethical and social impact of scientific discoveries, and is indispensable in that role, but philosophy is not necessary to the scientific method: testing, observation, testing, repeatability and peer review.

Again, my claim is the relationship and role between science and philosophy. I am not claiming that philosophy has no role. It does.

However, a strawman argument is not simply a misunderstanding. It's taking a different one from the argument you are actually making, pretending that it is the argument you are making, refuting that argument, and then pretending that your position has been refuted. Can you please point to where this was done, or withdraw or modify the claim?

Why not? Someone may not realize that they are misrepresenting their opponent's argument but their own version happens to be easier to deal with. This is still a strawman.
Quote;
''One of the characteristics of a cogent refutation of an argument is that the argument one is refuting be represented fairly and accurately. To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy. It doesn't matter whether the misrepresentation or distortion is accidental and due to misunderstanding the argument or is intentional and aimed at making it easier to refute. Either way, one commits the straw man fallacy.''

 

[Kharakov]

Can you please point to where this was done, or withdraw or modify the claim?

claim - i = clam. <-- happens to be where it was done too.

 

[steve_bnk]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

How are we to know?

More to the point, if the mind is immaterial, how cam we we have a material discussion?

 

[DBT]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

How are we to know?

More to the point, if the mind is immaterial, how can we we have a material discussion?

Exactly.

 

[Togo]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

We are not talking about statistics.

...philosophical inquiry must relate to scientific information.

Ok, so you're just repeating your opinion. I can't force you to discuss it.

Maybe I've missed your position - are you happy with the idea that science learns from philosophy, or do you disagree with your own source here?

Maybe you also missed the quote: Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalizations'' - science being the primary source of discoveries related to the physical world.

And I can't force you to answer my questions...

However, a strawman argument is not simply a misunderstanding. It's taking a different one from the argument you are actually making, pretending that it is the argument you are making, refuting that argument, and then pretending that your position has been refuted. Can you please point to where this was done, or withdraw or modify the claim?

Why not? Someone may not realize that they are misrepresenting their opponent's argument but their own version happens to be easier to deal with. This is still a strawman.

No, misrepresenting someone's position, refuting that misrepresentation, and then declaring the position to be refuted is a strawman. You've got as far as believing that I don't understand your position. Point out the remaining steps, or withdraw the claim.

 

[DBT]

Ok, so you're just repeating your opinion. I can't force you to discuss it.

You asked me what the point was in spite of my previous explanations, I repeated the point again in the [vain] hope that this time you'd get the point. I explained why (and provided articles) philosophy must relate to scientific information.

And I can't force you to answer my questions...

I answer, but you simply ignore key parts of my answers, including articles that examine the relationship between science and philosophy. Your response just cherry picks my answers and articles in ways that suits your requirements. In other words, you build a strawman that you can comfortably refute. Whether this tendency to cherry pick is conscious and intentional or unconscious and inevitable, I cannot say.

Yet again, science has the ability and the instruments to observe and test physical processes, and makes discoveries, regardless of any philosophical inquiries regarding the consequences of these discoveries.

For example, science discovered the means to split the atom, and regardless of many ethical or philosophical concerns, two Japanese cities were bombed in order to end the war. Politics overrode both the philosophical concerns (mass murder of civilians) and scientific concerns (runaway fission) for the purpose of ending the war.

Business interests also tend to overrule moral, philosophical and environmental concerns if the profits are significant.

And why did you ignore my outline? I repeat: Philosophy deals with the moral, ethical and social impact of scientific discoveries, and is indispensable in that role, but philosophy is not necessary to the scientific method: testing, observation, repeatability and peer review.

Again, my claim is about the relationship between science and philosophy. I am not claiming that philosophy has no role to play. I say that it does play a role, and I've outlined that role and provided articles that examine that role in more depth.

No, misrepresenting someone's position, refuting that misrepresentation, and then declaring the position to be refuted is a strawman. You've got as far as believing that I don't understand your position. Point out the remaining steps, or withdraw the claim.

Where do you get this stuff from? Are you making up rules as you go along? To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy - there is no additional requirement to ''declare the position to be refuted''

 

[Togo]

You asked me what the point was in spite of my previous explanations, I repeated the point again in the [vain] hope that this time you'd get the point.

No, I didn't. I made a series of points about what you had said, you ignored all off them, and just repeated your previous statement.

And I can't force you to answer my questions...

I answer, but you simply ignore key parts of my answers, including articles that examine the relationship between science and philosophy. Your response just cherry picks my answers and articles in ways that suits your requirements.

In other words, I choose which bits I want to ask you about, and ask you about them. And you refuse to answer because you've already decided which bits are relevant and which are not. So you just repeat the bits you feel are relevant.

Which is an interesting tendency actually, since the principle disagreement I believe I have with you on this subject is whether it is possible to state that some questions are somehow invalid or useless, not to be asked. You seem quite happy with philosophy, as long as it is restricted to scientific questions, or to questions you've already carved out as being about ethics, morality, and other social issues.

No, misrepresenting someone's position, refuting that misrepresentation, and then declaring the position to be refuted is a straw man. You've got as far as believing that I don't understand your position. Point out the remaining steps, or withdraw the claim.

Where do you get this stuff from? Are you making up rules as you go along? To distort or misrepresent an argument one is trying to refute is called the straw man fallacy

So all you need to do is find the bit where I'm trying to refute your position. Rather than, you know, discuss it. This being a discussion board.

Incidentally, it's a logical fallacy because it's a misuse of logic. Logic being a series of premises leading to a conclusion. All you have is questions by me that you've decided must represent a logical attack on your opinion. So I'm afraid you are still misusing the term.

Because from my point of view, you make a claim, which I don't entirely agree with. So I ask you about bits of it, and you refuse to discuss them, because the bits I want to discuss don't properly represent your claim. Instead you just repeat the claim over and over, while accusing me of building a straw man because I'm not addressing the points you feel I should be, to complete the attack you've decided I must be making.

Hence why I asked about:
Why you reference failed theories of the past as demonstrating that philosophy can't deal with the real world, when the history of science is littered with failed theories (indeed that's how scientific progress works).
The statement you made about any discussion of a physical phenomena being necessarily an investigation into that phenomena, when the same does not hold true for other disciplines, such as mathematics.

But as I said, I can't force you to discuss these things, or do any actual philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

Is gravity material?

Is magnetism material?

 

[Kharakov]

Is the question of material or nonmaterial mind material to the mind itself?

How are we to know?

More to the point, if the mind is immaterial, how can we have a material discussion?

Exactly.

Your discussion is immaterial to the matter.

 

[DBT]

No, I didn't. I made a series of points about what you had said, you ignored all off them, and just repeated your previous statement.

What you actually said was: ''Too much of a stretch, I think. Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it.'' - Togo - and that is what I was responding to in this instance. What you believe I did or did not do in regard to any of the other points is another issue.

The remark you made was completely irrelevant. Nobody, least of all me, made the claim that ''the discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it'' This is one of your little strawmen.

My claim being: philosophy must necessarily include scientific discoveries and explanations if it is to philosophically explore matters related to physical processes....such as the the nature of mind in relation to the brain. Instead of dealing with this point, you go off into the brambles and bushes, making up irrelevant objections such as - ''Even scientists don't believe that discussion of a phenomenon is the same as investigating it''

If you want to dispute the point that philosophy must necessarily include scientific discoveries and explanations if it is to philosophically explore matters related to physical processes, this being my claim, that is what you should be addressing, not statistics, not that ''discussion and investigation are not the same,'' etc.

In other words, I choose which bits I want to ask you about, and ask you about them. And you refuse to answer because you've already decided which bits are relevant and which are not. So you just repeat the bits you feel are relevant.

Exactly what bits do you believe I've ignored? I think that you've missed the point and focused on irrelevancies such ''discussion not being the same as investigation'' - which of course its not, and nobody has made that claim.

So let's see what you believe is the problem. With so many irrelevancies I don't know what you think I've ignored.

Togo, please give a formal list of the points you think I've ignored and I'll address your concerns point by point. Let's see if they are relevant.