03-03-2003 02:04									#211
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Anyway, no evidence to the contrary of God's existence has been presented, but that doesn't mean I should believe in God.

I don't see you coming up with any answer to this in support of your claim about mental representations.

Later

	03-03-2003 02:12									#212
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: And you are just a man who's operating with an antiquated 17th and 18th century conception of mental states.

Because scientific philosophy (understanding the Universe raher than ethical philosophy etc.) hasn't moved in 2500 years, unlike physics, mathematics, chemistry...

The views of 2500 years ago are demonstrably at odds with sensory information, whereas the Platonic ideal forms BS is just as valid as anything I've seen you say so far. And that's the difference.

	03-03-2003 02:29									#213
	Remove this text

quote: Maybe physicists are just stupid or perhaps they need to take more philosophy of mind courses to stop them talking about entities which have the scientific respectablility of fairies. Talk to people who work on the brain or in cognitive science or psychologists and you might find a different story (not necessarily all in agreement with me, but agreement that this is an open question). Look, behaviourists disputed the existence of such states precisely because they weren't observable - so mine is not a weird or totally unheard of position.

?

This is an awful argument. It does nothing to demonstrate that philosophy has an effect on the sciences; all you've done so far is to tell me that philosophers mold their theories to be more in line with what the scientists are discovering. Whch tells me yet again that philosophers try to learn "about" other subjects instead of learning to actually deal with them or to contribute something.

You've made up arguments that don't even look like a proof. In each of your posts you've made multiple assertions unbacked by proof in order to further your position. And the debate looks a lot more like one about politics or religion than it does a scientific or mathematical discussion. Which just goes to prove my point.

I've dealt with solid, logical proofs for years, and nothing you've said to demonstrate the "debunking" of Cartesianism has even come close to resembling one.

Nor, I'm sure does there exist a counterproof to any "theory" with even a modicum of self-consistency. You object to my telling you to accept the scientific method without proof but you want me to accept the real world without proof. None of this stuff can be demonstrated to a skeptical mind. Not even the mind's own perceived activities in the past can be relied on. But such a claim is out of fashion because it was an obvious trap (of course). And so is any other debate about the "great issues" of philosophy. Maybe in a thousand years you'll accept that too, then claim that you're dragging the rest of the world with you instead of vice versa.

	03-03-2003 04:19									#214
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: And you are just a man who's operating with an antiquated 17th and 18th century conception of mental states. Because scientific philosophy (understanding the Universe raher than ethical philosophy etc.) hasn't moved in 2500 years, unlike physics, mathematics, chemistry... The views of 2500 years ago are demonstrably at odds with sensory information, whereas the Platonic ideal forms BS is just as valid as anything I've seen you say so far. And that's the difference.

Wow, I didn't realise that eliminative materialism in its present form was 2500 years old or that it was demonstrably at odds with observation.

	03-03-2003 04:37									#215
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Frogger This is an awful argument.... :

Oh blah blah blah.

Stop trying to avoid the questions. Here they are again:

1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities? I can't detect them, they are not scientifically respectable and I can't see how they solve anything. At least Descartes has an argument (although it's not a very good one) for them. You don't appear to.

2) Why should I be a sceptic? Observing that there is a computer in front of me seems to me to be reasonable evidence for saying there is one and I don't think I need to hypostasise magical mental entities to account for error, or admit global scepticism.

So far, you have meticulously avoided giving a non-question begging answer to these questions. The best you've said to the first is that you have seen no evidence to the contrary - and that's just a silly claim. Are you going to continue to do this, or shall we just stop now?

Nothing you have offered is any better than the worst sort of dogmatism or accusations that philosophers are still doing the same thing Plato was (they aren't: things have changed; radically in fact). I'm quite prepared to accept that philosophy as it's been traditionally understood has no place in science or has no place in grounding scientific method, but I need reasons before I'll do it. I think that getting rid of Cartesianism would be a good start, which is why I find your insistence on Cartesianism so objectionable.

And I notice that you didn't bother responding to the account of mental representation that I so kindly offered. Which by the way was not offered as a thorough debunking of Cartesianism, but as an account of why the theory creates more problems than it solves.

For the record: if there is any foundation for science, upon which the latter is built like a house upon foundations, then it seems to me that we are better off with our ordinary common sense understanding of human beings as persons rather than some hypostasised mental entities that create more problems than they solve. Then again, I'm not sure that foundationalism is a coherent thesis, but I'd need good reasons to dispense with it.

	03-03-2003 05:27									#216
	Got spare money?

Could someone summarise exactly what it is you're arguing about? I tried to skim these threads and the entire thing seems to be (a) about the usefulness of philosophy, which should be obvious even to the thickest of common-sense idiots, (b) about the usefulness of science, which I personally would not contest but many people would and very persuasively (I hate bloody science relativists, but they're damn hard to argue againts), and (c) the knowledge about the world generated by the cartesian world view which KittyHorse seems to argue is the same one as the one science holds, which I'd disagree with completely.

Have I missed anything essential? I can't be arsed reading through the entire thread.

	03-03-2003 09:42									#217
	Got spare money?

Asher, Frogger, CyberGnu: Philosophy is useless

Imran and Agathon: no it's not

	03-03-2003 09:44									#218
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Snappie, do you get off spouting contrarian crap?

Philosophy is incontestably useful, while science is not?

Hah...

	03-03-2003 09:45									#219
	Tired of ads?

Snapcase is a music critic. His opinion on philosophy and science is invaluable.

	03-03-2003 09:50									#220
	Got spare money?

I think that post is along the lines of his "Classical music is full of sh*t" threads...

	03-03-2003 09:59									#221
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And I notice that you didn't bother responding to the account of mental representation that I so kindly offered. Which by the way was not offered as a thorough debunking of Cartesianism, but as an account of why the theory creates more problems than it solves.

That's because your "analysis" was so full of sh*t that there's hardly even a starting point.

You BAMed the entire process and then asked why I didn't respond. And to boot you did it using terms whose definition is apparently only known to you.

	03-03-2003 10:17									#222
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Agathon, wouldn't the most obvious proof for Cartesian mental entities be that people are conscious? There's nothing in regular science that can even conceivably begin to explain that, so far as I know - science has four forces that act upon stuff and make it move, which can explain a surprising amount of stuff, but it seems to just be obviously impossible for it to result in a conscious being (note I do not say a thinking being - I'm sure a decent computer could eventually simulate thought). Consciousness isn't just something that can be explained away by emergent properties, and I'm curious how anything except dualism can do it.

[I skimmed this thread, so if I missed an answer to this question already if you could point it out to me in a nonrude manner I would be eternally grateful]

	03-03-2003 10:20									#223
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I already mentioned that.

But he seems to follow the Philosopher's Credo: don't let logic get in the way of a good argument.

	03-03-2003 10:21									#224
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frogger That's because your "analysis" was so full of sh*t that there's hardly even a starting point.

Sounds like avoiding the argument to me. It's not my analysis, it's pretty common knowledge in my business, although of course you think that is worthless, even though you don't have any reasons as to why. And this from the man who refuses to answer two simple questions that are put to him. I could give reasonable answers to both of them so I don't see why you can't.

quote: You BAMed the entire process and then asked why I didn't respond. And to boot you did it using terms whose definition is apparently only known to you.

Rubbish. The real fact is that you are incompetent when it comes to answering simple questions that are put to you. Here they are again in case you missed them:

1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities? I can't detect them, they are not scientifically respectable and I can't see how they solve anything. At least Descartes has an argument (although it's not a very good one) for them. You don't appear to.

2) Why should I be a sceptic? Observing that there is a computer in front of me seems to me to be reasonable evidence for saying there is one and I don't think I need to hypostasise magical mental entities to account for error, or admit global scepticism.

I'll add a third:

3) Can you provide compelling reasons why the foregoing two questions cannot be answered but we should believe anyway.

Come on Mr Big-I'm-so-clever-Theoretical-Physicist answer the bloody questions or stop wasting my time.

	03-03-2003 10:27									#225
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Agathon, please, we have enough evidence of why philosophy is useless in the university -- you don't need to keep posting!

	03-03-2003 10:31									#226
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Giant_Squid Agathon, wouldn't the most obvious proof for Cartesian mental entities be that people are conscious? There's nothing in regular science that can even conceivably begin to explain that, so far as I know - science has four forces that act upon stuff and make it move, which can explain a surprising amount of stuff, but it seems to just be obviously impossible for it to result in a conscious being (note I do not say a thinking being - I'm sure a decent computer could eventually simulate thought). Consciousness isn't just something that can be explained away by emergent properties, and I'm curious how anything except dualism can do it. [I skimmed this thread, so if I missed an answer to this question already if you could point it out to me in a nonrude manner I would be eternally grateful]

Of course I won't be rude - you haven't been rude to me. I don't think that consciousness requires the postulation of Cartesian mental entities. Let's be clear: I don't think that minds are separate substances or anything like that, but what we were talking about were the so called mental representations that some thinkers postulate in order to explain how knowledge and error are possible. We are supposed to be aware of these by some magical inward vision. I can't see any good reason for believing in such things. I've asked Frogger to provide one, but he doesn't seem to want to.

If you want an answer to the question of whether dualism is right or not you would be best served by looking at an introductory text in phil mind. It would take too long to explain all of the reasons why dualism is wrong and I'm sure a professional textbook could do it better than me.

People do posit such entities in cognitive science and I have less of a problem with that (because they are not being used as foundational entities but explanatory entities) even though I'm kind of an opponent of cog sci. But I do have a problem with so called sense data or mental representations because I have yet to be shown that such things exist and postulating them creates more problems than it solves.

Goodnight anyway.

	03-03-2003 10:34									#227
	Tired of ads?

1) Which mental entities? I am conscious; I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist.

2) Ag, reasonableness would also lead you to accepting that there are physical laws and that they are simple and universal. If there aren't then we can't determine them. I operate as though I "know" certain things...like that my computer exists. But you can't prove to me that they do.

3) I'd already provided these answers for you. You keep avoiding them, and coming up with crap like a "linguistic analysis" to demonstrate that we must believe what we see until we're proven wrong. This attitude is utterly self-defeating. A good scientist won't believe anything he sees until he eliminates even the possibilities that seem ludicrous. And even then he retains doubt. Because nothing is certain, and to operate as if it were is the true error.

	03-03-2003 10:36									#228
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 1) Which mental entities? I am conscious I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist.

How is this any proof at all? How can you say that your aren't simply a mind in a tank, or if this isn't simply some dream?

'I think therefore I am' is very, very simplistic and solves nothing.

	03-03-2003 10:38									#229
	Got spare money?

quote: How is this any proof at all? How can you say that your aren't simply a mind in a tank, or if this isn't simply some dream?

Who said I thought I wasn't?

It solves nothing? No sh*t. If you'd been following me, I've been saying that for ages.

	03-03-2003 10:43									#230
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

... but other philosophical queries have solved very much, especially in the realms of politics.

	03-03-2003 12:05									#231
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I still wonder whether this discussion is about uselessness of philosophy in university, which is a matter of tax policy, management, opportunity, whatever, or about uselessness of philosophy at all. In the later case, I am astonished that uselessness can be used as a criteria regarding knowledge.

	03-03-2003 13:32									#232
	Support Apolyton

Would someone mind telling me what "Cartesian mental entities" are?

quote: Well, to judge by the above quote, at least you recognize that there exists a good philosophy.

Sure. I believe good philosophies to be ones that are logically valid.

quote: This may be ambiguous, but still correct statement.

Yes it is, under the generally accepted rules of most human languages. But it isn't a good statement in philosophical terms IMO.

quote: And human language is unfortunately how we deal with cognitive process. Not everything can be mathematized.

Philosophical assertions can be logically consistent. There's no reason why they shouldn't be.

quote: Even more than Aristotle and the Stoics, Hegel believed that the study of logic is an investigation into the fundamental structure of reality itself. According to Hegel, all logic (and, hence, all of reality) is dialectical in character. As Kant had noted in the Antinomies, serious thought about one general description of the world commonly leads us into a contemplation of its opposite. But Hegel did not suppose this to be the end of the matter; he made the further supposition that the two concepts so held in opposition can always be united by a shift to some higher level of thought. Thus, the human mind invariably moves from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, employing each synthesis as the thesis for a new opposition to be transcended by yet a higher level, continuing in a perpetual waltz of intellectual achievement.

From what I know of Hegel's philosophy (and this exerpt), I don't know see how he's saying that a system where contradiction is logically valid is useful. I always found Hegel's dialecticalism pretty silly anyways (no wonder Marx liked him ).

	03-03-2003 13:56									#233
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Peter Triggs Asher, tinyp3nis What was covered in these philosophy of logic courses that you found so boring?

To be totally honest, my courses weren't called philosophy of logic, or maybe the other one was I don't remember too well. But I'll answer anyway, maybe you understand better what I meant.
For me, it wasn't just the courses (I don't even know how much different our courses were, Asher's most likely more logic oriented) but the other students. When teacher asks easy questions, and the answers are obvious and the other students just don't get it.... Well it got boring. I did however like some of the stuff in the books, there were infact something new I didn't know allready. So eventually I just gave up on trying to keep listening to most selfevident stuff and started to ignore the sounds around me and read the book/did homework, whatever.
On the other hand, some of the stuff itself was boring, the type of stuff like "who said what when for the first time history and still was an idiot because he did not have the chance to grow up in a modern world and now we have to read about him" and blaablaa.
Oh yeah and like I said, of course the biggest dumbass sat next to me.

	04-03-2003 03:21									#234
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Frogger 1) Which mental entities? I am conscious; I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist. 2) Ag, reasonableness would also lead you to accepting that there are physical laws and that they are simple and universal. If there aren't then we can't determine them. I operate as though I "know" certain things...like that my computer exists. But you can't prove to me that they do. 3) I'd already provided these answers for you. You keep avoiding them, and coming up with crap like a "linguistic analysis" to demonstrate that we must believe what we see until we're proven wrong. This attitude is utterly self-defeating. A good scientist won't believe anything he sees until he eliminates even the possibilities that seem ludicrous. And even then he retains doubt. Because nothing is certain, and to operate as if it were is the true error.

I accept that thinking proves you exist. I also accept the fact you have memories. This is irrelevant to my question which is, is your primary source of evidence some kind of mental representation of reality like a sense datum or a mental picture or is it that thinking is a kind of internal vision? (neither of these are entailed by the fact that one is concious) These these are misconceived attempts to respond to various problems about knowledge, but they don't do the job they are supposed to (i.e. act as a foundation for our knowledge of the external world).

You've misunderstood the point about linguistic analysis. The term is used to label the school of thought founded by the later work of Wittgenstein. His main thesis is that philosophical problems arise through misunderstanding of the way our language works (and these can bleed into other areas like the foundations of scientific belief). If we want to know what the terms mean we have to look at the way they are used, for their meaning just is the use they are put to. To say that when I say something appears so to me entails that I have something in my mind called an appearance, ignores the way the words are ordinarily used, which is really our sole ground for answering such questions. There is a lot more to say on this interesting topic but that's enough for now.

The other source of the need to posit mental representations or mental states that are representational is to account for how our cognitive apparatus works. But we already have a discipline that does this - cognitive science. In this latter case representational states are not some foundation of knowledge, but hypothetical entities invoked to explain how the mind works. And they aren't a "mirror held up to the world" but they are part of the world, just as we are.

Anyway, I can't find any other reason for having them and I've never seen one and I know about many of the other dumb problems they cause so I assert they don't exist or at least that they shouldn't be part of a respectable theory.

As for scepticism. I think the truth is the opposite of what you say. We naturally believe in our senses and things we hear unless we have reason to doubt them (and there are good reasons for doubting them up to a point). But if we doubt these reasons themselves we end up in a sort of mental funk where we never believe anything. And if we assume from the get go that the default position is scepticism, then we will never get anywhere. That's why Descartes goes to such great lengths to give us cause for doubt.

If you wanted my attitude in a nutshell - it is that early on in the piece people (especially philosophers) make bad decisions on how to solve problems that are presented to them (often through misunderstandings of the way a given piece of language works). This leads them into saying dumb things like "there is no reality, there is only sense data". A more sensible view is to say, "Well is it possible that we went wrong somewhere earlier on in our account? Perhaps we should dump this theory and start again."

And no I do not think that the mind in a tank problem should bother us at all. That's because I'm not a foundationalist.

	04-03-2003 03:37									#235
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis On the other hand, some of the stuff itself was boring, the type of stuff like "who said what when for the first time history and still was an idiot because he did not have the chance to grow up in a modern world and now we have to read about him" and blaablaa.

This is the history of ideas. I think it is worth studying for the same reason other history is worth studying. Watching how ideas come into being, develop and pass away can make us think about our own ideas. Sometimes old ideas make partial comebacks due to new discoveries.

Anyway, everyone should read Aristotle just so they can see how dumb they really are. Sure he's wrong about a lot (we might be wrong about a lot too), but he's the closest there has been to a universal genius. I always have the terrible fear that if by some magical means like a time machine I were to meet Aristotle, he would argue me into accepting his views.

	04-03-2003 03:40									#236
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I always have the terrible fear that if by some magical means like a time machine I were to meet Aristotle, he would argue me into accepting his views.

That's a perfect example of why so many people question the usefulness of modern philosophers: They don't care about what's right, they care about who argues best. To them it's the same thing. To everyone else it's a joke.

	04-03-2003 04:09									#237
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If you wanted my attitude in a nutshell - it is that early on in the piece people (especially philosophers) make bad decisions on how to solve problems that are presented to them (often through misunderstandings of the way a given piece of language works). This leads them into saying dumb things like "there is no reality, there is only sense data". A more sensible view is to say, "Well is it possible that we went wrong somewhere earlier on in our account? Perhaps we should dump this theory and start again."

AH, but dumbing a down a theory is not always the proper solution. In many cases it is not what is observed that skews from the data, but the fact that they are measuring the wrong thing, and nothing is wrong with the theory.

quote: is your primary source of evidence some kind of mental representation of reality like a sense datum or a mental picture or is it that thinking is a kind of internal vision?

Cartesian Philosophy is today bunk. Proof of existance is in the pudding, yet what kind of existance? Ya know what, I don't really care, and to me, it doesn't really exist. Would I care, I would approach the problem the same way I know that I exist. Not by thinking, but by doing, a cause and effect experiment.

Does something that thinks, but cannot act on something or react to it, really exist?

Yet, we are certain that everything that reacts and/or acts to a certain outside existance also exists.

This kind of thinking is what makes people athesist.

It is not about believing, it is about being. If many people believe in something, does this necessarily make it true? Santa Clause?

If seeing is believing, interacting is about being.

So,

quote: 1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities?

You shouldn't, you should know, but can you?

quote: Why should I be a sceptic?

You shouldn't, it's just silly

quote: 3) Can you provide compelling reasons why the foregoing two questions cannot be answered but we should believe anyway.

No, I can't. If I stop thinking will I cease to exist?

Row, row, row your boat... It's all worthless rubish.

	04-03-2003 06:08									#238
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Frogger:
So fun watching pro-aborts rip themselves apart.

DuncanK touched on so many points that I can use, that he can't.

quote: Just like nobody can force the woman in my yet-to-be-discounted analogy to get cosmetic surgery.

So abortion = cosmetic surgery?

Why do we pay for abortion here in Canada if your analogy holds?

Why is adoption such a terrible option for a women who does not want to keep her child?

	04-03-2003 06:12									#239
	Got spare money?

Consciousness, I think, is simply the abillity of an organism to direct where a nerve inpulse goes using the memory part of the lymbic system of the brain, unlike a reflex or an instinctual response. Consciousness is just an evolutionary adaptation to have a more fexible behavior. I don't know what causes it, probably it involves nerve inpulses from the sense organs interacting with stored memories. Most organisms with a cerebral cortex (the upper layer of tissue that is wrinkled in most primates) are "conscious."

	04-03-2003 07:14									#240
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher That's a perfect example of why so many people question the usefulness of modern philosophers: They don't care about what's right, they care about who argues best. To them it's the same thing. To everyone else it's a joke.

Not to everyone, as this thread amply demonstrates.

Anyway, if someone has a better argument than you it's a good reason to accept what they say. Aristotle was a genius and a phenomenal arguer, we need more people like him.