Is the mind material or non-material?

[Kharakov]

Forget it.

Where does the material go?

 

[WAB]

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.

 

[WAB]

***deleted***

see next post

 

[WAB]

Forget it.

Where does the material go?

What material? : p < a smilie spread too thin

 

[Juma]

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

 

[WAB]

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

And...

it could also be I have misunderstood Togo. These are the hazards I face when coming to threads so late.

 

[Togo]

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.

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?

Can you explain why you've added the condition bolded above? if you remove that condition, I've already posted an example.

 

[Togo]

Yes. Since we define them.

??? Do I have direct access to concepts of mind that I can define?

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.

All information about a circle lies is within its definition whereas information about the mind must be empirically observed.

Wait, who's doing this observation, and what are they observing? Are you claiming that internal reflections are empirical observations?

 

[DBT]

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. Does the article achieve anything? If so, what?
Why not provide something more definitive? Perhaps a philosophical inquiry/argument of your own that does not include science....?

 

[Togo]

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?

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.

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.

Why not provide something more definitive? Perhaps a philosophical inquiry/argument of your own that does not include science....?

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.

 

[steve_bnk]

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.

 

[DBT]

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.

Well that's odd, I could have sworn that you were disputing what I said about the need for scientific references for philosophical inquiry into physical matters such as brain/mind. You even gave what you thought was an example to the contrary. But now you claim you were ''only 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?

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 you need to understand what your opponent is saying and address what is being said. If you believe they are not presenting their case clearly enough, you should ask for clarification, and not just make assumptions. Isn't that how it works?

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.

Not universally shared by whom? Can you give a list of scientists who feel the need to consult a philosopher in order to work out the nature and meaning of their own work?
Can you give a list of the discoveries of philosophy in terms of semantic reasoning? That is, pure philosophical reason without reference to scientific information.

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.

Don't just tell me what he says, give me quotes and references. Show me exactly what he says.

Because the little I did provide was dismissed without comment.

No, I made a comment. It was an objection to way you presented a quote without context or references. There was no conclusion. What discoveries were made, what new things were learnt.....

The philosophy board already has several discussions on various topics. There's no shortage of examples.

Show me one. One example where philosophical inquiry has made a major discovery into the nature and function of the brain/mind...or any other physical process that's normally in the domain of science.

 

[WAB]

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.

You mean you find no meaning in Bob Dylan's lyrics? [Won't get into the NT - big can. Many worms.] Pull the other one!

 

[WAB]

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.

And you are uninfluenced by others' opinions or media? Pull the other other one!

+ You are among the great human masses.

 

[Togo]

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.

When you say something that I disagree with, I'm interested only because you might have some idea or argument that I've missed. So I ask questions, talk around the topic, and explore for flaws in what you're saying. I'm interested in the topic. Your particular position, isn't any more interesting because it's yours, only because you might be persuaded to talk around it.

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.

So I guess we'll leave it there.

 

[DBT]

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.

It's not that. The problem is, whatever I happen say, your seemingly inevitable objections do not appear to relate to what I have have said. If you want to discuss, and presumably refute, the contention that philosophy has little relevance without a working relationship with science, you should provide an argument with evidence to support your contention and not just give a copied quote from an article that I cannot access.

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.

The point of contention in this instance is about the relationship of philosophy to science in terms of the relevance of philosophy without the inclusion of scientific information pertaining to the subject of inquiry.

And what does a leading scientist say on the matter?

Steven Weinberg on the relevance of philosophy to science: “ no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers”

And what about Hume?
Hume also warned against reasoning too far removed from the real world: if we reason a priori, anything may appear to produce anything. The falling of a pebble may, for aught we know, extinguish the sun; or the wish of man control the planets in their orbits.

It is only experience, which teaches us the nature of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another.'' David Hume.

And what is ''experience'' if not the testing one's premises, philosophies, etc, against an objective standard? Observing and testing the things of the objective external world being the principle work of science.

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.

Without explanation? That's not true. The question is, why do you ignore my explanation? I've repeatedly explained that investigation into the nature of brain/mind is impossible for philosophy without reference to scientific information because philosophy simply does not have the tools or means to delve into the workings of the brain. Without the actual physical experiments, fMRI, brain imaging, etc, philosophical discussion and reason alone is insufficient to provide accurate and reliable information about brain structure and function. This of course places severe limits on philosophical inquiry, and the reason why philosophy needs science. Without the necessary scientific information, what can be discovered? What can be learned?

 

[Togo]

Ok, you've yet again taken what I've said and replied purely on the basis of it's relation to your stated position. I guess we'll leave the matter here.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

I disavow anything you thought I wrote or anything I wrote about which you thought.

Besides it's immaterial.

 

[DBT]

Ok, you've yet again taken what I've said and replied purely on the basis of it's relation to your stated position.

Why wouldn't I? Considering that you have been disputing what I said about the relationship between science and philosophy, what you are saying in relation to my stated position on the subject is my point of contention.

 

[WAB]

The more esoteric and/or nostalgic university students ages hence may very well be dipping into these archives to study the Great BB Battle of DBT & Togo.

I think one might be half right and the other half wrong, but it'll all work out, like John Lennon said.