The burden of disproving my argument falls on the neurological reductionism — Wayfarer
If you’re claiming that the mind is explicable in terms of neurological data, then you have to show how the brain causes or gives rise to the activities of thinking, such as reasoning, etc — Wayfarer
How are you able to draw conclusions about reason? — Isaac
And what is panpsychism if not spiritualism or vitalism? A spiritualist doesn't have to be Victorian. There are very modern ones. But equally spiritualistic.Now why on earth do you feel the need to introduce ‘spiritualism’ to the conversation? — Wayfarer
Yes, but you used two properties of reason to draw this conclusion. T — Isaac
"reason is useless", then there is a contradiction. — Olivier5
Certainly you can measure and infer what these data mean, but that act of inference is the very thing you’re purporting to explain with reference to the data. There’s a vicious circularity in that which I don’t think can be overcome even in principle. — Wayfarer
Yes, but you used two properties of reason to draw this conclusion. The fact that it must be used to interpret neurological data, and the fact that you can't stand outside of it. I'm asking you how you arrived at those two properties. — Isaac
‘The Nature of Mind’ begins with the simple assertion that "men have minds", and Armstrong suggests that modern science may be the best tool with which to investigate the nature of the mind. He says that it seems that scientific consensus is converging on an explanation of the mind in "purely physico-chemical terms". He acknowledges some disagreement on the matter, but says that dissent tends to be on primarily non-scientific grounds.
It might help to assert what reason is, or failing that, what reason is supposed to do, before declaring impossibilities or absurdities to it. — Mww
Nevertheless, within the auspices of a logical speculative metaphysics, reason’s intrinsic circularity, manifest in its most fundamental aspect by using reason the faculty to draw conclusions about the very faculty under examination, can be at least recognized and thus alleviated, even if not eliminated entirely. Best way to do that, is stop trying to prove what can only be presupposed. — Mww
No more than doctor's eye measuring the diopters of an eye. — David Mo
And what is panpsychism if not spiritualism or vitalism? — David Mo
That is just the fallacy of circularitynot because of circularity, but because of inconsistency; for, to use reason to disprove reason already PRESUPPOSES its veracity, — aRealidealist
It takes a fair bit of work to re-frame it so as to understand the root of the issue. — Wayfarer
Reason" is an abstraction. — David Mo
I'm reasoning about the specific problems entailed by materialist philosophy of mind.You may try to override the use of reason to solve specific problems. — David Mo
If you don't want your panpsychism to be associated with spiritualism you should look for another term to describe your theory. — David Mo
If you are talking about consciousness you have only one alternative: either you describe consciousness in terms that can be related to matter or you separate it from matter. — David Mo
The problem is that you speak of a universal consciousness that does not manifest itself in a verifiable way. — David Mo
It's all rather esoteric. No wonder you have to resort to some kind of teaching unattainable to simple mortals to understand it. — David Mo
You've just repeated your argument again without addressing any of the points I raised — Isaac
Among other things. It is also the power to divide problems. Traditionally, the reason is said to be both synthetic and analytical.Reason is the faculty that makes abstraction possible. — Wayfarer
The contradiction involved is obvious: IF reason is BS, THEN you can’t use to prove that reason is BS. — Olivier5
"Reason" is an abstraction. There are several methods that we call rational. Logic is a rational method. Analysis is a rational method. Inductive generalization is a rational method. The hypothetical-deductive method is a rational method.
Through a meta-analysis of the results of these methods I can conclude that they are useful in solving certain problems. For example, they are useful in finding the remedy for certain diseases. Or to solve the problem of the origin of the solar system.
Continuing with my meta-analysis I can conclude that reason is a better tool than other irrational resources such as faith or intuition. — David Mo
See! That's what I mean. There's a cultural reflex, that if it can't be understood in scientific terms, then it's spooky - it's 'panpsychist' or 'spiritualist'. — Wayfarer
Its more subtle than that. We don't actually know everything about matter. It's true we have worked out what can be determined and measured using scientific instruments, but it is a mistake to limit the properties of matter to these discoveries. The so called non matter, or the dreaded aether might also be properties of matter which we have not discovered yet. Also we don't understand the origin, or cause of matter, which might were we to know it provide a grounded basis for a philosophy of matter.And if you want to say that it's a mixed thing between matter and non-matter you should specify what the properties of that strange entity are that they are neither.
You swallowed the final part of my remark:
And if you want to say that it's a mixed thing between matter and non-matter you should specify what the properties of that strange entity are that they are neither. — David Mo
I addressed your points with reference to a textbook example. — Wayfarer
1. [Reason] is the capacity we use to interpret and find meaning in neurological data. — Isaac
2. It is the only such capacity (there's no 'capacity X' which does a similar job). — Isaac
3. It is unique to humans (or uniquely advanced in humans) - a previous claim I've read from you. — Isaac
4. It is constituted entirely of, and can be reduced to, brain activity. — Isaac
I'm saying that reason can't be accounted for in neuroscientific terms. It belongs to a completely different ontological level - the symbolic level, you might say. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.