Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Where does the material go?Forget it.
Where does the material go?Forget it.
Forget it.
Where does the material go?Forget it.
Forget it.
I'm sorry for being a douchebag.
What I mean is: we don't need to know about the inner workings of our minds (brains) to form an idea about mind/brain. It may be a vague idea, but it's still an idea, as is the idea of the area of a circle. The content of the ideas are different, but one idea is the same kind of thing as another idea. I realize 'thing' is a miserably vague term here.
Maybe I didn't understand what your point was. Could very well be.
Forget it.
I'm sorry for being a douchebag.
What I mean is: we don't need to know about the inner workings of our minds (brains) to form an idea about mind/brain. It may be a vague idea, but it's still an idea, as is the idea of the area of a circle. The content of the ideas are different, but one idea is the same kind of thing as another idea. I realize 'thing' is a miserably vague term here.
Maybe I didn't understand what your point was. Could very well be.
There are two discussions going on in this thread so it may be that Togo misunderstood my comment which was about philosophy/science not on mind/matter
Great, so the points I raised that are relevant to the OP, but which you dismissed as irrelevant to your position (above), are still entirely valid for discussion?
The discussion on the question of physical or non physical mind was diverted into the tangent issue of ''philosophy requires science in order to remain valid'' - so it's not exactly the same subject matter. Our particular conflict was related to the latter issue, not the former.
If you believe that philosophy does not need to include science, whnot give an account of how you believe philosophy is able to inquire into the nature of the mind (whether the mind is physical or not), without including current scientific discoveries of brain/mind function from neuroscience?
Yes. Since we define them.
All information about a circle lies is within its definition whereas information about the mind must be empirically observed.I'm not seeing the distinction between an idea in my head about my mind, and an idea in my head about the area of a circle.
Great, so the points I raised that are relevant to the OP, but which you dismissed as irrelevant to your position (above), are still entirely valid for discussion?
The discussion on the question of physical or non physical mind was diverted into the tangent issue of ''philosophy requires science in order to remain valid'' - so it's not exactly the same subject matter. Our particular conflict was related to the latter issue, not the former.
Ok, so the points I raised are relevant to a discussion of whether philosophy requires science in order to remain valid, but you dismissed them as irrelevant to your own position on the topic.
Can you explain why you've added the condition bolded above? if you remove that condition, I've already posted an example.
Great, so the points I raised that are relevant to the OP, but which you dismissed as irrelevant to your position (above), are still entirely valid for discussion?
The discussion on the question of physical or non physical mind was diverted into the tangent issue of ''philosophy requires science in order to remain valid'' - so it's not exactly the same subject matter. Our particular conflict was related to the latter issue, not the former.
Ok, so the points I raised are relevant to a discussion of whether philosophy requires science in order to remain valid, but you dismissed them as irrelevant to your own position on the topic.
Basically right. I said that you were misrepresenting my remarks on the issue of science and philosophy, and pointed out several examples where you did that.
Can you explain why you've added the condition bolded above? if you remove that condition, I've already posted an example.
What you believe to be an example of a philosophical inquiry into the nature of the mind (whether the mind is physical or not) without references to science was just a quote from an article I could not access, so I can't say whether it relates to science or not.
Why not provide something more definitive? Perhaps a philosophical inquiry/argument of your own that does not include science....?
To use an old term, you have cut me to the quick...
Not sure why. Perhaps a different interpretation to my remark than was intended?
My mistake. I thought you were responding with sarcasm to what I thought would be obvious parody of the debate. You have agreed with some philosophical meanderings I made up out of nothing. Jabberwocky.
The debate freely uses the terms material and immaterial without any definition. leading to mostly a nonsensical discussion on nothing at all. On a par with debating how many angels can fit on the head of a needle.
Hence my play on words of there being a non-material vs material discussion....
No problem, I was agreeing with the underlying meaning and sentiment of your remarks. All good.
Great, so the points I raised that are relevant to the OP, but which you dismissed as irrelevant to your position (above), are still entirely valid for discussion?
The discussion on the question of physical or non physical mind was diverted into the tangent issue of ''philosophy requires science in order to remain valid'' - so it's not exactly the same subject matter. Our particular conflict was related to the latter issue, not the former.
Ok, so the points I raised are relevant to a discussion of whether philosophy requires science in order to remain valid, but you dismissed them as irrelevant to your own position on the topic.
Basically right. I said that you were misrepresenting my remarks on the issue of science and philosophy, and pointed out several examples where you did that.
But I wasn't misrepresenting you. I wasn't representing you at all. I was talking about the topic.
As long as you dismiss points purely on the basis of how well they represent your own opinion, how is it possible to have a philosophical discussion?
But we can say that the author, published in an established journal, believes it does not, which suggests that your ideas about the relationship between philosophy and science are not universally shared.
He also lays out reasons why it does not, which could be discussed. Except that they don't represent your opinion, and so must be a straw man, not fit for discussion.
Because the little I did provide was dismissed without comment.
The philosophy board already has several discussions on various topics. There's no shortage of examples.
To use an old term, you have cut me to the quick...
Not sure why. Perhaps a different interpretation to my remark than was intended?
My mistake. I thought you were responding with sarcasm to what I thought would be obvious parody of the debate. You have agreed with some philosophical meanderings I made up out of nothing. Jabberwocky.
The debate freely uses the terms material and immaterial without any definition. leading to mostly a nonsensical discussion on nothing at all. On a par with debating how many angels can fit on the head of a needle.
Hence my play on words of there being a non-material vs material discussion....
No problem, I was agreeing with the underlying meaning and sentiment of your remarks. All good.
I was not making any point and had no meaning. Reinforces my belief people will find meaning in anything. Clouds, inkblots, Bob Dylan lyrics, an incoherent New Testament, anything seemingly philosophical.....
It is not all good. It is indicative of how the great human masses are led and opinion shaped by the media. It odes not have to be genuine, just seem genuine.
To use an old term, you have cut me to the quick...
Not sure why. Perhaps a different interpretation to my remark than was intended?
My mistake. I thought you were responding with sarcasm to what I thought would be obvious parody of the debate. You have agreed with some philosophical meanderings I made up out of nothing. Jabberwocky.
The debate freely uses the terms material and immaterial without any definition. leading to mostly a nonsensical discussion on nothing at all. On a par with debating how many angels can fit on the head of a needle.
Hence my play on words of there being a non-material vs material discussion....
No problem, I was agreeing with the underlying meaning and sentiment of your remarks. All good.
I was not making any point and had no meaning. Reinforces my belief people will find meaning in anything. Clouds, inkblots, Bob Dylan lyrics, an incoherent New Testament, anything seemingly philosophical.....
It is not all good. It is indicative of how the great human masses are led and opinion shaped by the media. It odes not have to be genuine, just seem genuine.
As long as you dismiss points purely on the basis of how well they represent your own opinion, how is it possible to have a philosophical discussion?
Nothing new, when have we ever had a ''philosophical discussion'' First off, you should understand that if you are going to argue against someones position...
As long as you dismiss points purely on the basis of how well they represent your own opinion, how is it possible to have a philosophical discussion?
Nothing new, when have we ever had a ''philosophical discussion'' First off, you should understand that if you are going to argue against someones position...
And this, in the core, is the problem. You have no interest in discussing philosophy.
You only have interest in arguing against or for particular positions within philosophy. Everything that anyone says to you gets stuck into the lens of arguing for or against a particular position, nothing is worth discussing outside that.
But you've taken to dismissing everything said without examination, on the grounds that it doesn't correspond to your opinion. That's a little sad, but more importantly, it makes you effectively useless as someone to discuss philosophy with.
I was not making any point and had no meaning. Reinforces my belief people will find meaning in anything. Clouds, inkblots, Bob Dylan lyrics, an incoherent New Testament, anything seemingly philosophical.....
It is not all good. It is indicative of how the great human masses are led and opinion shaped by the media. It odes not have to be genuine, just seem genuine.
Ok, you've yet again taken what I've said and replied purely on the basis of it's relation to your stated position.