The whole discussion is a comedy of errors about a big fuzzy ball of fluffy bullshit. It quite simple does to science of the mind what was done to the science of the planets a few hundreds years ago though burning us and beheading us has lost some of it's backing.

Pebble wrote:but limited ability to interogate and make predictions about

In other words, you can't do any better than story-telling.

VazScep wrote:

Pebble wrote:but limited ability to interogate and make predictions about

In other words, you can't do any better than story-telling.

Wrong. We know more by volumes than we did a short while ago and in my opinion we know quite enough. Due to a lag in the communication channels however it will be the badge of woo for some time yet before it dies the same slow kicking death as that earth-at-the-center and vital-force thing.

Bob I think meant it was his final word and I should do the same. All this business of philosloppy of the mind is the desperate last ditch effort for the woo to clutch it's dying embers. If anyone wants a serious discussion about language games and reduction pm me.

logical bob wrote:I like the recognition that our subjective experiences cannot be mapped onto anything else for its acknowledgement that ultimately we are all alone, something we know from experience all too well.

On the other hand, I often like to think we are together as a species (of animal) that enjoys self awareness and the ability to have these discussions, to share our understanding and interpretations of fundamental human subjective experiences (that is, the basic building blocks of sensory and emotional experience), which (via my naive logic and reasoning) cannot be that radically different from person to person (except maybe for "non-materialists", such as, UE, LI, and jamest *smile*). So, with regard to mapping, there may be some consistency we can look toward, in that, whatever the mapping, it must somehow be shared, in terms of similarity of construction, across similar conscious organisms (i.e., ourselves).

The realm of the observed does not transcend the realm of the considered. The observation of a thing happens in the same realm as the reaction/judgement to it. A fundamental mistake, made by the 'matties', is to treat the realm of the observed as objective and distinctive to that of the realm of the considered/judged. That is bollocks: I who observe, also think & feel - the observed world is not something which happens external to 'me', the observer.

The point is that the observed world cannot be the cause of my thoughts and emotional responses to it, since they are all integral aspects of a singular reality. In other words, the observed-brain cannot be the cause of thoughts & emotions.

... What we have here, is three different aspects/traits/properties of the same thing, all interacting as phenomena, within/amidst that 'thing'. So, a scientist cannot explain consciousness (experience as a whole) in terms of a single observed body, since that body is reducible to one of the aspects/traits/properties of this 'thing': observation [of things].

The mattie is screwed because he/she shouldn't even be trying to explain 'experience'. For him/her, the only credible option available is eliminativism: to deny experience/consciousness - to treat it as 'folk psychology' (Churchland) - and to pretend that they don't know what it is actually like to see red; feel fear or cold; smell roses; etc.. Then, there is nothing to explain-away, other than naive language. Of course, I don't want to turn this discussion into one about eliminativism, but I do want to make it clear that any mattie out-there who thinks he/she can treat 'experience' as a definite phenomenon and explain it via science/matter, is fucked.

'mattie'? So it's into derogatory slang now?
The immaterialist just has to explain how the immaterial interacts with the material and they've won as far as I can see. The materialist is on a higher ground because electro-chemical reactions and biology can be explained materially.
That's my take as a curious bystander. Any immaterialist want to win me over and explain, in simple English, how the immaterial interacts with the material?

Animavore wrote:'mattie'? So it's into derogatory slang now?

No... I was just pinching SoS's terminology - it's a nickname. Apparently, I'm a 'nonnie'. No harm meant, honest.

The immaterialist just has to explain how the immaterial interacts with the material and they've won as far as I can see.

I have, since I explain the material in terms that are ultimately immaterial: not the things themselves.

The materialist is on a higher ground because electro-chemical reactions and biology can be explained materially.

But material properties are discerned properties and rationally-imposed definitions of observed phenomenon. The materialist is not on a higher ground unless he/she can prove that any thought/definition about something relates to that thing itself, as opposed to the observation of it. As I say, observation [of something] is just one aspect of experience (thought and emotion, being two others).

Animavore wrote:That's my take as a curious bystander. Any immaterialist want to win me over and explain, in simple English, how the immaterial interacts with the material?

The immaterialist might say there is no material to interact with. There is only what appears to be material. A more interesting question might be "why the material appearance?" (said in a Jokeresque "why so serious?" voice).

So that's a 'no' then? It's all you had to say.

Animavore wrote:So that's a 'no' then?

Correct - it wasn't derogatory slang.

It's all you had to say.

Incorrect - it wasn't all I had to say, evidently.

LucidFlight wrote:

Animavore wrote:That's my take as a curious bystander. Any immaterialist want to win me over and explain, in simple English, how the immaterial interacts with the material?

The immaterialist might say there is no material to interact with. There is only what appears to be material. A more interesting question might be "why the material appearance?" (said in a Jokeresque "why so serious?" voice).

You make it sound as though you couldn't possibly conceive of a purpose for material experience, from an idealist's perspective. Really?

What happened to Jay?

I asked for a specific thing and it wasn't provided. It's no biggie. Someone may figure how the immaterial interacts with the material in the future.

jamest wrote:You make it sound as though you couldn't possibly conceive of a purpose for material experience, from an idealist's perspective. Really?

No, I just find it most curious that the materialist experience is so faithfully employed and extraordinarily well executed.

jamest wrote:What happened to Jay?

Jay got abducted by aliens. I'm looking after his affairs now.

Animavore wrote:I asked for a specific thing and it wasn't provided. It's no biggie. Someone may figure how the immaterial interacts with the material in the future.

I already have, but you don't seem to understand:

'The material' is thought of as distinct to 'the considered' (that which is thought & felt about [it]). As such, the considered is traditionally/contemporarily regarded as 'the immaterial' and the observed as 'the material'. What I tried to say, previously, is that 'the observed' is as immaterial as 'the considered' (a different aspect of the same realm) - and, therefore, cannot be the causal-agent of such.

... It all boils down to the fact that an observed thing is not synonymous with a thing-in-itself. Therefore, an observed thing cannot be held accountable for the cause of thought/emotion.

In other words, don't reflect upon this problem as two distinct worlds/realms interacting with one another. That is simply not the case. What we have here, is different traits/properties of the same realm, interacting.

I'm sorry but that's wibble to me. I'm not into philosophy. I'm into science. Now are you going to describe to me how the immaterial interacts with the material? What's going on in the brain? Where do they meet and exchange? Why can physical damage to the brain make us lose mental properties if mental properties aren't physical? That sort of thing. Diagrams and theory would be nice.

LucidFlight wrote:
Jay got abducted by aliens. I'm looking after his affairs now.

Jay was about to become an idealist. He was enquiring about the cost of robes, then suddenly disappeared. I suspect that you are an alien, then, impersonating him. As such, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that saucer-shaped vehicles sock. After all, what difference does the shape of your vehicle make in empty-space? Further, your world must be shit, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Lastly, you look like a frog, you ugly git. Oh, don't bother getting ratty about any of this, or else I'll blow my bacteria on you.

M319 wrote:

logical bob wrote:Who said anything was going to lead us to the truth?

If it's true then we can get to it.

Do you have an argument in support of this contention?

jamest wrote:Jay was about to become an idealist. He was enquiring about the cost of robes, then suddenly disappeared.

Yes. This is why he is on the way to Knuk-Knuk in the Oo'der system, where the Galactic Idealist Transformation is taking place.

jamest wrote:I suspect that you are an alien, then, impersonating him. As such, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that saucer-shaped vehicles sock.

Yes, we come on saucer-shaped socks.

jamest wrote:After all, what difference does the shape of your vehicle make in empty-space?

Saucer-socks are highly effective at deflecting space debris.

jamest wrote:Further, your world must be shit, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Yes, thanks to the Galactic Idealist Transformation I mentioned before. The idealists have taken over, and none of them have a clue as to how any of the supremely advanced and sophisticated materialist technology works.

jamest wrote:Lastly, you look like a frog, you ugly git. Oh, don't bother getting ratty about any of this, or else I'll blow my bacteria on you.

Perhaps it's the moustache and baguette — dodgy disguise, I know. Oh, those bacteria of yours will be a good source of bio material for our labs. Ta.

Animavore wrote:'mattie'? So it's into derogatory slang now?
The immaterialist just has to explain how the immaterial interacts with the material and they've won as far as I can see.

Except from the perspective of the immaterialist there may not be anything material. The clue is in the name.