Nagel's Batty Explanation of the Mind-Body Problem

[none]

do I gotta whip out my dick again?

Is that what you do when you have nothing rational to say.

no

 

[untermensche]

I said a lot.

You are free to rationally comment about any part of it.

Sweeping dismissals without any thought connected to them are childish displays.

 

[none]

I said a lot.

You are free to rationally comment about any part of it.

Sweeping dismissals without any thought connected to them are childish displays.

show your sources, please
that's all I ask
I offer my dick
which is it?

 

[untermensche]

I said a lot.

You are free to rationally comment about any part of it.

Sweeping dismissals without any thought connected to them are childish displays.

show your sources, please
that's all I ask
I offer my dick
which is it?

Make a comment.

Prove any work about digging up research about the Paleolithic is worth it.

Evolution is not left to reason.

There is nothing rational about sexual behavior.

It is not a choice.

 

[none]

I said a lot.

You are free to rationally comment about any part of it.

Sweeping dismissals without any thought connected to them are childish displays.

show your sources, please
that's all I ask
I offer my dick
which is it?

Make a comment.

Prove any work about digging up research about the Paleolithic is worth it.

Evolution is not left to reason.

There is nothing rational about sexual behavior.

It is not a choice.

so you want the dick. lol

 

[untermensche]

Make a comment.

Prove any work about digging up research about the Paleolithic is worth it.

Evolution is not left to reason.

There is nothing rational about sexual behavior.

It is not a choice.

so you want the dick. lol

Speculation based on fossil evidence is more than playing with your dick.

In the Paleolithic it is likely the dominant male did all the mating. At least in the open.

We don't see anything stable enough to allow even a tribe.

Stone tools for millions of years.

 

[none]

A man seeks out his true love. He tirelessly courts her and wins her affection. They engage in sexually productive activity and have a child they attend to constantly.

I would say that none of that is willed behavior.

It is all instinctual behavior.

Many men wake up one day and wonder why did they did any of it when they meet and begin courting a mistress. Further instinctual behavior.

As far as distressed geese go.

Your guess to explain their behavior is as good as mine. The geese can't tell us what is wrong.

If we saw what stopped their behavior we might better understand what was distressing them.

Make a comment.

Prove any work about digging up research about the Paleolithic is worth it.

Evolution is not left to reason.

There is nothing rational about sexual behavior.

It is not a choice.

so you want the dick. lol

Speculation based on fossil evidence is more than playing with your dick.

In the Paleolithic it is likely the dominant male did all the mating. At least in the open.

We don't see anything stable enough to allow even a tribe.

Stone tools for millions of years.

study primates in real time

 

[untermensche]

Bonobos?

 

[fromderinside]

Been studying rats, mice, monkeys, apes, dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, goats, etc for up to thousands of years.

Any thoughts?

 

[untermensche]

Which one will tell you how humans behaved prior to centuries of cultural evolution?

It is speculation but merely saying it is speculation is not meaningful.

 

[fromderinside]

Which one will tell you how humans behaved prior to centuries of cultural evolution?

It is speculation but merely saying it is speculation is not meaningful.

It is a speculation guided by archeology, biology, psychology, physics, chemistry , etc.

Currently those interested in evolution of social behavior follow several routes. We study various extant civilizations, histories of civilizations, evolution via model (fruit fly), by lineage (begats and similarity comparisons), by type (social behavior of mice, ants, bees, apes, etc) through anthropology, archeology, and climates among other factors, und so weiter.

We take findings from the above and compare with data from these other fields to create models and extant examples.

So there is speculation. But because overlaps and parallels there are convergences to what must have taken place and how it did so which becomes better with more information and increase in knowledge from all of those fields.

Now do you think you could create or imagine how such scientific experimentation and speculation comes closer and closer to being a theory until there is an experiment that settles this or that notion.

It is so much better than rational processes, these empirical processes. Every one guided by objective data.

 

[untermensche]

You can't have any kind of empirical study without a rational framework to guide it.

Studies do not give us anything.

We can draw rational conclusions from them if they are set up rationally.

The rational processes are paramount in all acquisition of knowledge and disparaged by the ignorant fool.

 

[none]

Bonobos?

what ever is convenient, just don't receive.

 

[untermensche]

Bonobos?

what ever is convenient, just don't receive.

I heard you the first ten times you gave this worthless opinion without anything else besides your worthless opinion.

 

[fromderinside]

It's a reductionist objective empirical framework. Rational is something for Elitists and the Political at tea.

 

[Ahab]

In 1974, Philosopher Thomas Nagel published his classic 17-page explanation of why it is so difficult to understand the physical basis of consciousness: What is it Like to Be a Bat?

.....


The answer to the mind-body problem is grounded in the nature of experience. Brains have experiences, but what is an experience from a physical perspective? That's all I want to say for now--to point people at Nagel's explanation, if they have not already read this seminal paper. I will give my thoughts later on the way to think about the objective side of subjective experience.

My view of Nagel's paper is not as positive as yours. A good critique of it can be found HERE.

Nagel seems to accept the Cartesian conception of the mind. I think an Aristotelian/Wittgensteinian conception is more sensible. The Aristotelian conception does not identify the mind with the brain nor does it take consciousness to be a mark of the mental. After all, there are many animals that are conscious but don't have a mind. It is only humans with an array of intellectual powers and the capacity to act for reasons that can be said to have a mind. Nor is the mind a thing that interacts with the body.

Nor do I agree with the view that 'brains have experiences'. It is human beings that have experiences. The brain is not an agent. It is the human being that is an agent that interacts with and experiences the world in which we live.

Not sure you are still reading this thread. It seems to have gone off the rails.. Anyways, if you are interested, I would be happy to exchange and clarify our differing views on this.

 

[untermensche]

It's a reductionist objective empirical framework. Rational is something for Elitists and the Political at tea.

Who made it objective?

 

[fromderinside]

The body of objective data made possible by using empirical methods. At this point those finding principles are standing on the shoulders of giants and the accumulated technology and information they produced.

The same can't be said for philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

The body of objective data made possible by using empirical methods. At this point those finding principles are standing on the shoulders of giants and the accumulated technology and information they produced.

The same can't be said for philosophy.

The very idea of objective and the idea of objective data are philosophical ideas.

But no interpretation of any data by humans is objective.

Humans agreeing on things do not make them objective.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not talking about the idea of objective data. I'm talking about the application of objective methods to produce objective results about how those things produced the subjective experience. Completely different thing from what you keep attempting to divert toward. We don't do subjective analyses on subjective experience.