Brain Injuries and Materialism

Raising objections is not the same as proving those objections invalidate materialism or anything else. They are just more questions. I took it upon myself to look for an answer. Here's what I found. Look at it this way. Name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case.?


It (PSI) can't get anymore murky than it already is. If it was as clear as you and many others believe it to be there would be no need wonder if the world is immaterial or material.

Steve, if everything is about proof to you, I have no clue what to say. Yes, proof is the end game, but with regards to this stuff, we don't have any proof on either side and who knows if/when we will. What we do have is evidence, some of which I've already mentioned, which to me challenges the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain or reducible to the brain fairly strongly.

What on earth do you mean "name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case"? When did I assert that anything was proof? You asked me to elaborate on what I meant by philosophical issues I have with materialism in general. I gave you an extremely watered down and basic version of some arguments. What you said is pretty vacuous; Nagel points out logical inconsistencies that I think are important to note. It's fallacious to suggest that because questions are created by questioning materialism in the way Nagel has, that that is somehow not important.

With regards to the PSI, you just said "you and others". Again, point me to where I suggested that PSI evidence is crystal clear? You're just saying that to try to make it seem like I'm speaking more in favor of it than I am. I specifically said I'm not in a position to argue strongly with regards to PSI one way or the other. How did you get "if it was as clear as you and others believe" from that?

In essence, you've now made two posts that hand wave away the points made without addressing them at all.
 
Steve, if everything is about proof to you, I have no clue what to say. Yes, proof is the end game, but with regards to this stuff, we don't have any proof on either side and who knows if/when we will. What we do have is evidence, some of which I've already mentioned, which to me challenges the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain or reducible to the brain fairly strongly.
You are free to believe whatever you want. I've an oppositional point of view which can be inferred from this thread: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/new-stuff-in-neuroscience.917/page-5#post-99247

What on earth do you mean "name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case"? When did I assert that anything was proof? You asked me to elaborate on what I meant by philosophical issues I have with materialism in general. I gave you an extremely watered down and basic version of some arguments. What you said is pretty vacuous; Nagel points out logical inconsistencies that I think are important to note. It's fallacious to suggest that because questions are created by questioning materialism in the way Nagel has, that that is somehow not important.
That should be an easy to answer. But here's the thing, Nagel speculates and asserts but goes no further. That you refer to Nagel as if he has some great insight implies you see him as someone of high professional esteem and expertise when all he's offered is speculation about neo-Darwinism.
With regards to the PSI, you just said "you and others". Again, point me to where I suggested that PSI evidence is crystal clear? You're just saying that to try to make it seem like I'm speaking more in favor of it than I am. I specifically said I'm not in a position to argue strongly with regards to PSI one way or the other. How did you get "if it was as clear as you and others believe" from that?
It's been to long since I wrote that to remember the context, quote me please.

In essence, you've now made two posts that hand wave away the points made without addressing them at all.
I'm sure the points you have in mind aren't brand new, so yes, it is easy to hand wave them away.

I've read some of Nagel, I'm not impressed. I see the same arguments here and I'm not moved to change my perspective.
 
You are free to believe whatever you want. I've an oppositional point of view which can be inferred from this thread: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/new-stuff-in-neuroscience.917/page-5#post-99247


That should be an easy to answer. But here's the thing, Nagel speculates and asserts but goes no further. That you refer to Nagel as if he has some great insight implies you see him as someone of high professional esteem and expertise when all he's offered is speculation about neo-Darwinism.

It's been to long since I wrote that to remember the context, quote me please.


I'm sure the points you have in mind aren't brand new, so yes, it is easy to hand wave them away.

I've read some of Nagel, I'm not impressed. I see the same arguments here and I'm not moved to change my perspective.

I am familiar with your point of view.

Yet again, he isn't speculating about certain issues. He is pointing out logical inconsistencies that come along with consciousness, cognition and value with regards to reductionism or physicalism/naturalism. Those issues are real, they aren't speculations. He speculates about what kind of theory could replace a materialistic one without requiring higher intelligence or intentional purpose; I never said I agreed with those speculations or everything that he said. It is a complete falsehood that he speculates and asserts but goes no further. Like I said, he tries to put together a basic replacement idea that isn't akin to materialism or some form of dualism/idealism/immaterialism, which is largely speculative. Contrary to what you're suggesting, the critiques he makes of materialism are not speculations or baseless assertions. His criticisms of materialist theory draw from his understanding of consciousness and reason. It is a negative argument which is reasonable, not an attempt at a positive argument which speculates throughout.

Steve this is a short thread. I'm sorry for not quoting your whole post but the comment I'm quoting from is on the second page. I haven't become fully familiar with how to quote individual parts of posts yet.

It isn't shocking that you're not impressed. I've never once seen you say you're impressed by anything that runs contrary to what you believe on this forum. I've also yet to see you, on this forum at least, say why you disagree with the points Nagel's making or something similar to them. You saying "I'm sure the point you have in mind aren't new" is just lazy.
 
I also want to point out that if you think all Nagel has offered is speculation about Neo-Darwinism, you should probably try actually reading his book. That is a gross misrepresentation of what he actually wrote.

Feser has a great Mind and Cosmos roundup that shows how Mind & Cosmos fits into Nagel's larger oeuvre.

I didn't find much worthwhile in the "skeptic" rebuttals to Nagel, seems like the usual desperation when materialist evangelicals scramble to defend their faith.
 
I'll look for some later.
This is the sort of issue that got you banned for a couple of months. I mean, it is reasonable to write:

I've read some of Nagel, I'm not impressed. I see the same arguments here and I'm not moved to change my perspective.
Provided you can back that up with something more concrete.

Otherwise debate here could degenerate into something like

"Well I have read Einstein and Nietzsche, and I think they are both wrong!"

David
 
Feser has a great Mind and Cosmos roundup that shows how Mind & Cosmos fits into Nagel's larger oeuvre.

I didn't find much worthwhile in the "skeptic" rebuttals to Nagel, seems like the usual desperation when materialist evangelicals scramble to defend their faith.
David asked this of me: "Why not quote a little of Nagel, and then explain why you are not impressed?" So it's fair to ask you instead of quoting Nagel quote the skeptic rebuttals and explain why their critiques are not impressing.
 
David asked this of me: "Why not quote a little of Nagel, and then explain why you are not impressed?" So it's fair to ask you instead of quoting Nagel quote the skeptic rebuttals and explain why their critiques are not impressing.

I'd suggest clicking on the link in the post you quoted where such things are discussed.

Nice try getting me to do your homework on Nagel for you though.
 
Right then. So neuroscientists are accept some impacts of em fields but not in the way you envision. Not sure why if they are open to some they wouldn't be to others. And despite this you hold that they consider the head a closed box - except when they don't.

(I'm getting a sense of deja vue here. Have we had this exact exchange before? Maybe even with the same link? Not going to search but I think we might have).

A joy chatting with you as always...

I suspect most laymen feel this way much like they feel Freudian psychology is still a thing, 80 years after it isnt.
 
I suspect most laymen feel this way much like they feel Freudian psychology is still a thing, 80 years after it isnt.

Well, we still teach Newtonian and not quantum physics in our schools and it has been a century... So, anyone not interested in being autodidactic is likely to feel "left out".
 
Well, we still teach Newtonian and not quantum physics in our schools and it has been a century... So, anyone not interested in being autodidactic is likely to feel "left out".
We do that because Newtonian physics suites a need to educate people who things around then behave. Teaching quantum physics in high school would be a monumental waste of time. While this probably doesn't enrich anyone's world view, it's sort of necessary.

The problem then becomes that everyone leaves school thinking they're educated enough to talk about how the world fundamentally is.
 
We do that because Newtonian physics suites a need to educate people who things around then behave. Teaching quantum physics in high school would be a monumental waste of time. While this probably doesn't enrich anyone's world view, it's sort of necessary.

The problem then becomes that everyone leaves school thinking they're educated enough to talk about how the world fundamentally is.
Did you guys not learn about quantum physics in high school? I only took the basic science courses in my high school and I can recall learning st least some QM. Very basic of course, but it was there. Maybe not all schools do that.
 
We do that because Newtonian physics suites a need to educate people who things around then behave. Teaching quantum physics in high school would be a monumental waste of time. While this probably doesn't enrich anyone's world view, it's sort of necessary.

While I think that we have classes that are redundant as part of the curriculum (meaning that we could fit at least a basic QM course by removing them, or we could at least expand our selection of electives), the main problem may be that we have been doing this for so long that there hardly are teachers that could try to explain in a concise manner. In any case, the end result is always the predominance of naive realism in the population.
 
Did you guys not learn about quantum physics in high school? I only took the basic science courses in my high school and I can recall learning st least some QM. Very basic of course, but it was there. Maybe not all schools do that.

I don't think that we did, that is exactly the problem that we are discussing.
 
Did you guys not learn about quantum physics in high school? I only took the basic science courses in my high school and I can recall learning st least some QM. Very basic of course, but it was there. Maybe not all schools do that.
nope. Physics wasn't even a mandatory class in high school.
 
Back
Top