Still Stuck on Stupid

What can be more folksie than the brain exclusively gives rise to mind? There is no evidence for it, yet people want to believe it. In that context the limit of the mind is the few inches of organic tissue inside the cranium.
These are philosophers doing this, not scientists. Ask them. I agree that folk models of the mind/brain are probably all wrong.

~~ Paul
 
2. Materialist ideas can be dangerous and often are. They appeal to authority and the intellect, reduce emotion and instinct to secondary importance, elevate science to religious status, and promote score and ridicule of others. That doesn't mean every materialist is wicked, though I believe all are misguided.
And I think idealist ideas can also be dangerous. Witness folks who don't seem invested in this life and are simply waiting for the afterlife. Also folks who don't take care of themselves because some other power will do so. As far as ridiculing is concerned, I'm sure you can find it on all sides.

Most people don't change their worldview simply because other people don't like it.

~~ Paul
 
And I think idealist ideas can also be dangerous. Witness folks who don't seem invested in this life and are simply waiting for the afterlife. Also folks who don't take care of themselves because some other power will do so. As far as ridiculing is concerned, I'm sure you can find it on all sides.

Most people don't change their worldview simply because other people don't like it.

~~ Paul
You'll find scorn and ridicule are actively promoted by materialists, as tools for imposing sanity (i.e. materialism).
 
You'll find scorn and ridicule are actively promoted by materialists, as tools for imposing sanity (i.e. materialism).
Perhaps so, but that was only one of the things you listed in post #60. There is plenty of scorn and ridicule on the idealism side, too. Just look at this forum.

~~ Paul
 
Most materialists do not behave as though the love of their children is a chemical reaction, or killing someone they object to is the inevitable result of a rise in blood pressure, or synapses misfiring. They may believe those things in the abstract, but as they make no difference to how they live their everyday lives, their beliefs and the practice of them is inconsistent.
How is that inconsistent? I see love, morals, emotions, conscience etc. as evolved traits.
They have an obvious function if we consider we are a social species that got an evolutionary advantage of acting in group. We are a species that need a long childhood to absorb all the cultural knowledge we need to survive, so a deep love for our children is necessary to sustain the long effort of bringing them up.
Whether you agree or not, i think we can make a coherent case that all human traits can be explained in a naturalist framework through evolution.

Now I realize you probably disagree with all that, but that does not make my position inconsistent.

I do not understand how trying to explain how a human being works makes one less human, it is not going to override the billions of years of evolution that it took to become the humans we are.
If i believe that on a cosmic scale there is no goal to existence, that does not mean that i cannot have the sense of purpose that is forced upon me by evolution, after all i do not live my life on a cosmic scale.
Explaining that sense of purpose does not magically make it disappear.

The real inconsistency would be quite the opposite.
A materialist explanation for human behaviour demands that we are largely incapable to escape our evolved behaviors and instincts.
The ultimate inconsistency would be to start behaving contrary to that.

We can not place ourselves outside of our humanity, even if we try.
 
Raising the same sort of question as with placebos: Should we lie to people in order to sustain or produce effects that we think are useful?

I vote no. Your mileage may vary.

~~ Paul

This adherence to Truth seem silly from a materialist perspective. I'd even go so far as to say it could be considered selfish, sadistic, or both.
 
This adherence to Truth seem silly from a materialist perspective. I'd even go so far as to say it could be considered selfish, sadistic, or both.
First of all, you're never going to get away with. If compelling evidence against libertarian free will arises, how are you can to keep the cat in the bag over the long run?

Another issue concerning placebos is that if you are going to allow my doctor to lie to me, you also have to allow all the medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies to lie. You'd have to build one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. Do you really want to do that? Would it be illegal for a doctor to tell his friend that the medicine he is taking is just a placebo?

Now, if it turns out that most people don't pay enough attention and so carry on as before even in the face of new evidence, then great. We won't need the conspiracies because people are just going along with the gags.

~~ Paul
 
Oh, I was talking about the free will stuff. I'm unsure about how to handle the placebo effect, but I'd agree it's probably not a good idea to get doctors into the practice of giving out fake medicine.

On the free will point, I'm thinking less about practicality and more just about whether it's moral or not to deceive people about determinism. Or if not deceive, just keep in ignorance.
 
On the free will point, I'm thinking less about practicality and more just about whether it's moral or not to deceive people about determinism. Or if not deceive, just keep in ignorance.
So we should suppress all the studies that seem to indicate that decisions are made before we are consciously aware of making them? I think book burning is a bad idea, but even if we tried, would we get away with it in the long run?

I think we should push the idea that we have free will but decisions are not necessarily conscious. That will confuse everyone so much that they will give up and believe whatever makes them feel good. :eek:

~~ Paul
 
What is being eliminated is folk psychological models of the mind. Now, of course, there may be some harder-core eliminativists who eliminate even more.


~~ Paul

Let's just define the most hardcore eliminativist materialism as the view that conscious experience does not exist. I agree with you that probably nobody in science or philosophy actually holds this view. The weird thing, though, is that Alex, and many on this forum, seem to think that most or all skeptics and materialists hold this view! This is what I mean when I talk about caricaturing the other side.
 
So we should suppress all the studies that seem to indicate that decisions are made before we are consciously aware of making them? I think book burning is a bad idea, but even if we tried, would we get away with it in the long run?

I think we should push the idea that we have free will but decisions are not necessarily conscious. That will confuse everyone so much that they will give up and believe whatever makes them feel good. :eek:

~~ Paul

Well, there might be a neural basis for free will, if Tse is right....actually, maybe Tse's argument needs it's own thread?

eta: Here it is.
 
What can be more folksie than the brain exclusively gives rise to mind? There is no evidence for it, yet people want to believe it. In that context the limit of the mind is the few inches of organic tissue inside the cranium.
Gabriel, would you explain why the mind arising from the brain is such a distasteful idea?[/quote]
 
I live in China, so unfortunately I can't watch that youtube video here. Maybe you could summarize Searle's views about Strawson's argument.

Dominic, Searle presented a general possibility that Tse develops more formally. Also note that Tse directly addresses Strawson's argument, as I'll post in the Tse thread I just made, whereas Searle was speaking more in generalities.

Hope it proves to be of interest! :)
 
Raising the same sort of question as with placebos: Should we lie to people in order to sustain or produce effects that we think are useful?

I vote no. Your mileage may vary.

~~ Paul

Who's talking about lying? My motive in sharing those links, which I apparently should have spelled out, is that what people believe about determinism influences their behaviour. It's directly relevant to Dominic's P2 in reply #55 and I am inclined to align with Gabriel's reply in #60.
 
Gabriel, would you explain why the mind arising from the brain is such a distasteful idea?
I didn't say it was distasteful, I said there was no evidence for it. You seem keen on explanatory mechanisms as the only way to ascribe truth, yet blithely attribute the interior universe of perception to a blob of tissue and characterise anyone who doubts it as a fool. I'm requesting the same consistency of attribution - consciousness is either a mystery with no bragging rights either way, or it's organic mechanics like the rest of the body.
 
Last edited:
Let's just define the most hardcore eliminativist materialism as the view that conscious experience does not exist. I agree with you that probably nobody in science or philosophy actually holds this view. The weird thing, though, is that Alex, and many on this forum, seem to think that most or all skeptics and materialists hold this view! This is what I mean when I talk about caricaturing the other side.
I wish we could actually tease apart the difference between the 'hardcore' materialists, and the more nuanced ones. My impression is that the more nuanced materialists want to say the same thing but in a more confusing way - or that they themselves are somewhat confused!

Will a non hardcore skeptic stand up please and explain what it is exactly that they do believe!

David
 
I didn't say it was distasteful, I said there was no evidence for it. You seem keen on explanatory mechanisms as the only way to ascribe truth, yet blithely attribute the interior universe of perception to a blob of tissue and characterise anyone who doubts it as a fool. I'm requesting the same consistency of attribution - consciousness is either a mystery with no bragging rights either way, or it's organic mechanics like the rest of the body.
It's a mystery but It's organics just like the rest of the body.
Philosophers and theists bring to light was matters most to the human psyche, but they offer no explanatory power to the exterior world.
I few months back I posited that the brain processes give rise to consciousness, but that consciousness could continue after death. Believe it or not some folks didn't like that idea.
Yes, I think it is foolish to turn a blind eye to consciousness arising within the brain.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it was distasteful, I said there was no evidence for it. You seem keen on explanatory mechanisms as the only way to ascribe truth, yet blithely attribute the interior universe of perception to a blob of tissue and characterise anyone who doubts it as a fool. I'm requesting the same consistency of attribution - consciousness is either a mystery with no bragging rights either way, or it's organic mechanics like the rest of the body.

No evidence for it? Well, to play devil's advocate, I'd disagree. Anaesthesia, lobotomy, brain damage, neurological diseases, sleep, brain injury, etc. All affect our consciousness. Can we explain that in the filter framework?
 
Who's talking about lying? My motive in sharing those links, which I apparently should have spelled out, is that what people believe about determinism influences their behaviour. It's directly relevant to Dominic's P2 in reply #55 and I am inclined to align with Gabriel's reply in #60.
My guess is that it influences their behavior for awhile and then they go back to previous behavior. Your links simply brought up the question of lying; I didn't mean to imply that you advocated it.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top