It was years ago when I looked at the "free-will" question, and, when I spoke about it yesterday, I'd forgotten what my conclusion at that time was.

I mis-spoke earlier when I asserted that there's free-will. I think it's a meaningless issue.

Obviously, even from our own point of view, our choices are determinisitic. We act according to our preferences, and available information, including the conditions in our surroundings.

As some famous philosopher was quoted (recently in these forums) as saying, we can't want or not want something by wanting to want or not want it.

Some say that free will is compatible with determinism, and some say it isn't. It just depends on what someone means by free-will, and that's why it's a meaningless issue.

Michael Ossipoff

Sure. But your conscious experience is of your perceptions, feelings, preferences, wants, likes and dislikes among your surroundings, Those are exactly what one would expect as the experience of an animal, or any other purposefully-responsive device. — Michael Ossipoff

I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying conciousness is the ontological starting point, which you seem to agree with.

It's just the simplest description consistent with our experience. — Michael Ossipoff

But how can it be the simplest when consciousness is the proper starting point? Conciousness does not present itself to you as "animal". You still haven't peeled back the onion layers far enough; I'm not talking about our conscious experience of our physical surroundings; I'm talking about the pure, simple, experience of your conscious mind: your bare thoughts and feelings.

I can't prove that your elaborate Dualism is wrong. — Michael Ossipoff

Where have I constructed an elaborate dualism in this thread? Ironically, conciousness as the ontological starting point is the simplest possible way to begin a philosophy. It's the most intuitive. What you're perceiving as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated are the layers of the onion of your mind that you need to peel back in order to arrive at this simplest, purest starting point.

Don't you see that "consciousness" of yours is your perception and analysis of your surroundings, maybe with a monitoring of that analysis, for purposes of optimization or communication? ...and your feelings of preference, likes, dislikes, fears, etc.? — Michael Ossipoff

Peel back further; it's not only that.

I've looked up a number of definitions of "biological-reductionism. — Michael Ossipoff

Well, that's a good start. 'Reductionism' generally is trying to explain a higher-level phenomenon in terms of its lower level components; typically atoms, but broadly speaking anything which is believed to be fundamental and scientifically predictable. Reductionism is to say of something that it is 'nothing but' - in this case, that humans are 'nothing but' animals, or that the mind is 'nothing but' neurochemicals.

Biological reductionism is typical of neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins. His famous book, The Selfish Gene', is one of the all-time greatest hits of reductionism:

We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. — Richard Dawkins

(I've never been able to understand why that's 'astonishing', but then, the kinds of things that Dawkins find astonishing might be astonishing ;-) )

HIs buddy, Daniel Dennett, sings from the same hymn sheet:

An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe. — Daniel Dennett

I've agreed that your own 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one, because it's what your life-experience possibility-story is about.

But your Dualism has the burden-of-proof, because of its unnecessary elaborateness. — Michael Ossipoff

I haven't explicitly argued for dualism in this thread. The problem with 'dualism' is how 'substance' is generally understood. Most often it is conceived of as some ethereal stuff, some ghostly goo which is thought by dualists to inhabit brains - rather like the spirit in liquor. And then the implicit question is, 'what is the evidence for that'? To which the answer is (probably): none whatsoever, because the question is misconceived.

But to understand why, takes quite a bit of analysis. This is because the word 'substance' has a very different meaning in philosophy, than in common-sense usage. The philosophical idea of 'substance' that the likes of Descartes were speaking of, was descended from Aristotle's metaphysics 1. And 'substance' was the Latin translation of a Greek term, 'ousia', which is much more like 'being' 2. So in some ways, when we speak of a 'thinking substance', we're not referring to any kind of objective reality, but to the 'subject which thinks'. That is the sense in which 'substance' is nearer in meaning to 'being' than it is to 'stuff'.

But we've very much lost touch with the understanding that gives rise to this perspective. We nowadays are very grounded in 'objectivism' - that what is real is what is 'out there', what is, in principle, knowable in objective or scientific terms. I think an important part of philosophy is becoming aware of that perspective and how we embody it, which is often unconscious or implicit. And that's not an easy thing to do, it takes a lot of work, in a subject that very few understand or teach. So understanding philosophical dualism 3 requires a solid grounding in philosophy and also the history of ideas - how modernity evolved from its predecessors.

As some famous philosopher was quoted (recently in these forums) as saying, we can't want or not want something by wanting to want or not want it. — Michael Ossipoff

Schopenhauer: 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.' It is a comment on the difficulty of reigning in the will, or how desires have a life of their own. Sure rings a bell for me.

I’d said:
.

Sure. But your conscious experience is of your perceptions, feelings, preferences, wants, likes and dislikes among your surroundings, Those are exactly what one would expect as the experience of an animal, or any other purposefully-responsive device. — Michael Ossipoff

.

I'm not arguing against that.

.
Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”?
.

I'm saying conciousness is the ontological starting point, which you seem to agree with.,

.
Well, I said “Sure”, but I should be more specific about what I agree with:
.
I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts.
.
The rest of our life-experience possibility-stories consists of a variety of “if-then” facts, whose applicability is only within the inter-referring system of “if-then”s that they’re part of.¬
.
Obviously the subject, and the central, primary, essential component of your life-experience possibility-story is you. The story is about your experience.
.
So yes, you have special ontological status, in your live-experience possibility-story.
.
We could choose to call you a Consciousness, but what are you in that story? You’re an animal. The story is about that animal’s experience.
.
You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body.
.
It’s as if you wanted to go around cutting every dime in half, into a “heads” and a “tails”. Or cut every magnet in half, into a “north” end and a “south” end (that wouldn’t even work).
.
Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness. Only imaginative Dualist philosophers can create that fiction.
.
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.”
.
You think that you’re a Consciousness that “has” a body. This artificial and unnecessary dissection of yourself into Consciousness and a body is what I mean by an elaborate Dualism.
.
You say that what’s ontologically-primary is a Consciousness that is separate from the body. How do you support that claim?
.
You say it’s simple. Ok, but its artificiality and its un-necessariness, is a demerit, when your theory is compared to something much simpler (without that artificial dissection) that is completely consistent with experience, and doesn’t require assuming or positing anything other than what your life-experience story is clearly about: an animal’s experience.
.
I’d said:
.

It's just the simplest description consistent with our experience. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

But how can it be the simplest when consciousness is the proper starting point?

.
You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim?
.
Consciousness what is directly observed? What’s directly observed is the experience of an animal in its surroundings, with its feelings, preferences, likes, dislikes, etc.
.
You’re positing an abstract thing, a Consciousness, that has a body, and is the experiencer. That’s positing a contrived entity, and an artificial dissection.
.
Your’re dividing yourself into a body, and…what?
.
Say you total a car, but are unharmed. If you can afford to replace the car, then it’s no big deal. That’s because you’re separate from, different from, the car.
.
Say you fall off of a bridge. If you aren’t the body, then why should that be a big deal? No, what happens to the body happens to you, because you’re the body.
.

Conciousness does not present itself to you as "animal".

.
What is presented to you is your surroundings, and your evaluation and impression of them, with respect to your needs, feelings, likes and dislikes.
.
That’s exactly what an animal would feel and notice, as you’ve already agreed.
.

You still haven't peeled back the onion layers far enough; I'm not talking about our conscious experience of our physical surroundings; I'm talking about the pure, simple, experience of your conscious mind: your bare thoughts and feelings.

.
We don’t just perceive our physical surroundings. We analyze them, have feelings and impressions about them, and about what we want or would like, or what we need to avoid. And yes, as human animals, we have an analytical capacity greater than that of other animals, and sometimes an interest in abstract things not directly related to physical needs.
.
Thoughts and feelings are about something. Maybe something of expected animal-interest, such as survival, food, shelter, avoiding trouble, etc. Maybe about things that you like. Maybe other things that aren’t directly survival-related. Remember that otters, birds, and even crocodiles have been observed to play. Why should it be surprising that humans likewise enjoy non-surival-related forms of play?
.
None of those things are bare thoughts and feelings.
.
By the way, maybe my saying that we’re nothing other than the animal matches some already-established variation of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism (pomp). (…even though I’m metaphysically an Idealist). But I don’t know of such a version of pomp.
.
And, even if there is one, each pomp version, including mine, should have a name, by which to refer to it. If my version already has a name, then I’ll start using that name. But, in the meantime, my suggestion that we’re the animal and nothing more will be referred to by me as “Animalness”.
.
I’d said:
.

I can't prove that your elaborate Dualism is wrong. — Michael Ossipoff

.,
You replied:
.

Where have I constructed an elaborate dualism in this thread?

.
Alright, I admit that you haven’t been very specific, but I assume that you’re saying that, in addition to a physical body, in addition to the animal, there’s a separate entity called a Consciousness. You must mean that, when you say that we aren’t just the animal.
.
That sounds like Dualism. Any Dualism is more elaborate than Animalness.
.

Ironically, conciousness as the ontological starting point is the simplest possible way to begin a philosophy.

.
…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience.
.
Yes, for example, I can’t match or equal the elegance or simplicity of Advaita’s extreme Monism, in which there is only one Existent.
.
But does that make it more parsimonious than Skepticism?
.
No, because it has an assumption.
.
Years ago, I used to argue for Advaita, at a philosophy forum. When people told me that I expressing a belief that I wasn’t supporting, they were right. I’d read about Advaita, and wanted its details to be true.
.
I was arguing something that I couldn’t really support, and I wasn’t comfortable with that.
.
Skepticism and Animalness are free of assumptions.
.
“You are the body” describes our experience. As I’ve said, that was obvious to me even in pre-secondary school.
.
A notion that we’re a noncorporeal Consciousness, different from the body, never occurred to me then. Why should it?
.
I’ve said that Skepticism, it seems to me, qualifies as a Vedanta version, because its conclusions and consequences are the same. In fact, I’ve said that it seems to me that its conclusions and consequences don’t even really differ from those of Advaita. …leading me to say that Skepticism and Advaita could be regarded as just different wordings.
.
Most likely there are many metaphysicses that lead to the same conclusions and consequences.
.
Advaita is very popular. Is its metaphysics your metaphysics?
.

It's the most intuitive. What you're perceiving as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated are the layers of the onion of your mind that you need to peel back in order to arrive at this simplest, purest starting point.

.
That should set off an alarm-bell for you, when you know that your proposal can be perceived as elaborate and unnecessarily complicated. Your simplest, purest starting point is different from what our experience shows us.
.
…not that it necessarily contradicts experience. But it claims an assumption that isn’t in our experience.
.
Simple, but not parsimonious, because of that artificial, unnecessary dissection-assumption that it involves.
.
I’d said:
.

Don't you see that "consciousness" of yours is your perception and analysis of your surroundings, maybe with a monitoring of that analysis, for purposes of optimization or communication? ...and your feelings of preference, likes, dislikes, fears, etc.? — Michael Ossipoff

.
You reply:
.

Peel back further; it's not only that.

.
You’re assuming something different from our actual experience.
.
You like it because it has a sort of ideal appeal. But I claim that parsimony, match to experience, and easy supportability are more important.
.
If parsimony is about a count of Existents, then Advaita would win. But I feel that it’s more about absence of need for and use of assumptions and brute-facts.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Schopenhauer: 'Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.' It is a comment on the difficulty of reigning in the will, or how desires have a life of their own. — Wayfarer

It sounds like support for Determinism--which I subscribe to.

An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe. — Daniel Dennett — Wayfarer

That sounds awful. Is he an Eliminative Physicalist?

(I used to know what he was saying, but I have no reason to read him, or about him, now.)

Maybe I don't thoroughly understand the history of Dualism, but I've read statements of its various versions (a long time ago). What I've been criticizing about it now is that it posits more entities than are needed for consistency with experience.

Michael Ossipoff

Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”? — Michael Ossipoff

I never said I was a dualist. You asked if I was a spiritualist; I questioned what that was because it's not a philosophical term, and I clarified that I thought you meant dualism. You're assuming I'm a dualist, it looks like, probably because i'm questioning your physicalism, and because my correction about spiritualism/dualism made you realize that you meant dualism, which is now what you've correctively proceeded to accuse me of.

I'll go ahead and let you know here that I don't consider myself a dualist or a monist (or an idealist) in the classical senses. More later.

I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff

What?? How does that relate to your insistence on "animalism"? Are we just animals, or is objective reality just "some abstract logical facts", or are you an idealist like you say later on, or...???

You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body. — Michael Ossipoff

Your assumptions about what I'm arguing are getting tiring. Nowhere am I arguing for a "dissection". I'm arguing for the primacy of conciousness within experience. As I'm reading through your tome of a response I'm feeling more and more that you're not really comprehending my argument at all. I sincerely don't mean that as an insult. You basically continue to say the same things, and now I'm just saying the same things, because you're not addressing my points; but my points were direct addresses to your points...

Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness. Only imaginative Dualist philosophers can create that fiction.
.
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.” — Michael Ossipoff

I don't even know what to say.

You think that you’re a Consciousness that “has” a body. — Michael Ossipoff

Nope

You say that what’s ontologically-primary is a Consciousness that is separate from the body. — Michael Ossipoff

Nope

You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim? — Michael Ossipoff

Re-read if you want that

Alright, I admit that you haven’t been very specific, but I assume that you’re saying that, in addition to a physical body, in addition to the animal, there’s a separate entity called a Consciousness. You must mean that, when you say that we aren’t just the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

Classically, dualism means that there is an inseparable divide between the two concepts soul and body. I don't see consciousness as inseparably "other" from physicality, but neither am I a physicalist. If I have to label myself with blithe philosophical terms, it would be something like "generative mystical monist". I doubt that would interest you much though...

…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience. — Michael Ossipoff

Right, I didn't elaborate clearly on what I meant by simplest. conscious experience as ontological starting point is not experientially the simplest starting point; physicality is, which is your argument. Let's clear this up. What I'm saying is that the simplicity of a physical starting point is not in consonance with the actual state of reality. The actual state of reality is what you seem to consider superfluously elaborate. Recognizing that conciousness is ontologically primary requires a very robust amount of philosophical and mental work. But once arrived at, it's the simplest and purest starting point. It's, rather, a re-starting point. I didn't make that clear, and I apologize.

Is he an Eliminative Physicalist? — Michael Ossipoff

Dennett helped invent it.

Maybe I don't thoroughly understand the history of Dualism, but I've read statements of its various versions (a long time ago). — Michael Ossipoff

Philosophical dualism has a pretty bad reputation, although I happen to think that it's often misunderstood. IN any case, as ND points out, dualism is not 'spiritualism'. And 'philosophical materialism' is....well......

We could choose to call you a Consciousness, but what are you in that story? — Michael Ossipoff

Creative, learning, and evolving.

The story is about that animal’s experience. — Michael Ossipoff

You learn or are taught that you are an animal. Experientially, one just exists and is evolving by exploring and creating in memory.

Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness. — Michael Ossipoff

On the contrary, all of life is exploring, learning, and creating in it's own way. It's called evolution. Different but the same.

You’re positing an abstract thing, a Consciousness, that has a body, and is the experiencer. That’s positing a contrived entity, and an artificial dissection. — Michael Ossipoff

No duality or dissection required. They are one and the same. The differences are in substantially. It is the continuum that exists from quanta wave form to the atom (which is largely empty) to solid.

Michael, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your metaphysics probably is the antithesis of what you are seeking. It is one brute fact after another and there seems to be an endless steam of them to support your view of life. Maybe, if you are interested in a parsimonious philosophy, you might want exam your posts, and as an exercise number each of your brute facts and then trying to limit them somehow?

Recognizing that conciousness is ontologically primary requires a very robust amount of philosophical and mental work. — Noble Dust

It is the obvious and most natural starting point. It is what we experience all the time.

"Then where’s the need for this additional Dualistic entity that you call “Consciousness”? “ — Michael Ossipoff
.
I never said I was a dualist.
.

You didn’t say one way or the other, and I was guessing. Of course it isn’t good to guess, because people don’t like being misquoted.
.
You asked if I was a spiritualist; I questioned what that was because it's not a philosophical term, and I clarified that I thought you meant dualism. You're assuming I'm a dualist, it looks like, probably because i'm questioning your physicalism…

.
I’ve been expressing a form of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism that I call “Animalness”, because I don’t know what name it goes by. (But it’s so obvious that it must already have a name.) But I don’t subscribe to metaphysical Physicalism. I express that distinction, between those two Physicalisms, by writing-out “philosophy-of-mind Physicalism”. Because that’s a long term, I abbreviate it “pomp”.
.

, and because my correction about spiritualism/dualism made you realize that you meant dualism

.
Well, I knew that I meant “Dualism”, but I was saying “Spiritualism”, even though of course not all Dualisms say that their entities can be communicated-with. Calling it all Dualisms “Spiritualism” was therefore admittedly a little inaccurate. I said it that way to emphasize that Dualism in general should be regarded like Spiritualism.
.

, which is now what you've correctively proceeded to accuse me of.

.
It was just a guess, but, as I said, it isn’t good to guess.

.

I'll go ahead and let you know here that I don't consider myself a dualist or a monist (or an idealist) in the classical senses.

.
Ok.
.
I’d said:
.

I suggest that all that’s objectively, or globally-assertably, real and existent or true are maybe some abstract logical facts. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:

What?? How does that relate to your insistence on "animalism"? Are we just animals, or is objective reality just "some abstract logical facts", or are you an idealist like you say later on, or...???

.
All of the above.
.
The metaphysics that I call “Skepticism” proposes that your life consists of a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.
.
That possibility-story is a hypothetical system of inter-referring “if “s, “if-then” facts, and abstract logical facts.
.
That story has no objective truth or reality other than in its own inter-referring context. It rests entirely or almost entirely on “if “s.
.
For example, as I mentioned before, physical laws are hypothetical facts that relate some hypothetical quantity-values. Those hypothetical physical laws, and the quantity-values that they’re about, are parts of the “if” clause of some if-then facts.
.
Similarly, mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose if-clause includes a system of axioms.
.
That metaphysics is an Idealism.
.
That life-experience possibility-story is about the experience of an animal (you).
.
Why is there that story? How could there not be? It’s all hypothetical “if-then” s, and it needn’t be real or true in any context other than its own, among its inter-referring “if-then” s.
.
I was saying that abstract logical facts have special status as objectively true, but I don’t know if I should say that. Maybe all those abstract logical facts can be said as “if-then” s, in which case they don’t sound more fundamental or objectively-true than mathematical theorems. …and, if so, it could be said that the whole story rests entirely on “if “s.

But the whole life-experience possibility story can’t be said to be objectively-true.
.
So, Animalness doesn’t contradict Skepticism, an Idealism.
.,
I’d said:
.

You insist on wanting to artificially, unnecessarily, dissect the animal into a Consciousness and a body. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

Your assumptions about what I'm arguing are getting tiring.

.
Sorry, but you didn’t thoroughly specify your position. I was assuming that it was a Dualism.
.

Nowhere am I arguing for a "dissection". I'm arguing for the primacy of conciousness within experience.

.
I agree that you are the primary, essential, and central component of your life-experience possibility-story.
.
So, in that way, I agree that the person (animal) is primary (in his/her life-experience possibility-story).
.
It seems that we’re saying pretty-much the same thing.
.
…except that you’re separating “Consciousness” out from the animal
.
…and maybe saying that Consciousness is the Fundamental Reality.
.
If so, then aren’t you expressing Advaita?
.
But you’re wanting to separate-out a component of the animal and call it Consciousness, or a. Consciousness. I don’t think that I’m misquoting you when I say that.
.
I’m saying that the animal is a unitary whole, like the “sealed-unit” refrigerator motor-compressor unit or a VW transaxle. No need to try to philosophically divide the animal into parts.
.
Your wanting to separate-out Consciousness is what I mean by “dissection”.
.

As I'm reading through your tome of a response [5 pages] I'm feeling more and more that you're not really comprehending my argument at all.

.
But have you thoroughly specified your position?
.

I sincerely don't mean that as an insult.

.
None perceived.
.

You basically continue to say the same things, and now I'm just saying the same things, because you're not addressing my points

.
I never intentionally evade addressing what someone has said. If I didn’t answer something, then that must be because I misunderstood what was meant.
.
Alright, you aren’t a Dualist. But am I mistaken to say that you philosophically separate Consciousness out from the animal, whereas I regard the animal as a unitary “sealed-unit” that needn’t be regarded in separate philosophical parts?
.
Must you not be doing that, in order for you to say that Pure Consciousness is the Fundamental Existent?
.
I’d said:
.

Most animals have no awareness of having or being a Consciousness…
Would you say that a squirrel perceives that it is a Consciousness, or that it just perceives that it likes acorns?
.
.
If squirrels could speak English, and if you could ask a squirrel what it is, would it say that it’s a Consciousness? Or would it say, “I’m someone who likes acorns. Give me some acorns.” — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

I don't even know what to say.

.
I’ll take that as non-disagreement. Thank you.
.
I meant to illustrate that, obviously, animals don’t think of themselves as Pure Consciousness, but as someone with various likes, needs, dislikes, concerns, etc.
.
I'd said:

You say that Consciousness is the proper starting-point. Can you show justification for that claim? — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Re-read if you want that

.
Certainly. I may very well have missed it.
.
On which page of this topic, and which date, was posted the posting with the justification?
.
You said:
.

Classically, dualism means that there is an inseparable divide between the two concepts soul and body. I don't see consciousness as inseparably "other" from physicality, but neither am I a physicalist. If I have to label myself with blithe philosophical terms, it would be something like "generative mystical monist". I doubt that would interest you much though...

.
Why not? I feel that it’s always good for positions to be fully-stated. For one thing, then I wouldn’t make the misinterpretations of your positions that I’ve been making.
.
Generative Mystical Monist-- That sounds like Advaita.
.
I’d said:
.

…maybe a philosophy constructed abstractly, instead of from our actual experience. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:

.Right, I didn't elaborate clearly on what I meant by simplest. Conscious experience as ontological starting point is not experientially the simplest starting point; physicality is, which is your argument.

.
Yes.
.

Let's clear this up. What I'm saying is that the simplicity of a physical starting point is not in consonance with the actual state of reality.

.
But what you’re calling the actual state of Reality is less likely to be the actual state of Reality, because it makes an unsupported assumption, positing something that doesn’t come from experience.
.

The actual state of reality is what you seem to consider superfluously elaborate.

.
But don’t you see that it’s superfluous elaborateness makes it less likely to be the actual state of Reality?
.

Recognizing that conciousness is ontologically primary requires a very robust amount of philosophical and mental work.

.
I suggest that it requires an assumption that doesn’t come from experience.
.
(…though I’m not saying that it’s contradicted by experience either.)
.

But once arrived at, it's the simplest and purest starting point.

.
I don’t deny that.
.
Advaita is more simple, neat and pure than Skepticism.
.
Your position on philosophy-of-mind is simple, neat and pure.
.
But Skeptism has no assumptions or brute-facts, and Animalness posits nothing about us other than our obvious animalness.
.
Proposals with fewer (or no) assumptions are more likely to be true, or are at least more aesthetically-appealing, even if they aren’t quite as simple.
.
Pure simplicity, in disregard of the assumptions that it needs, has artistic beauty, but its assumptions can detract from its merits as a proposal for how Reality is.
.
Michael Ossipoff

And 'philosophical materialism' is....well...... — Wayfarer

I'm not metaphysically a Materialist or Physicalist.

I subscribe to a version of science-of-mind Physicalism (pomp), which I call "Animalness", because I don't yet know its name.

Maybe Biological-Reductionism (by one of it several definitions) is the name that it goes by.

But there are meanings of Biological-Reductionism that don't apply to me. For example, if members of a racial minority don't do as well on an exam as members of other races who have taken the exam, I don't believe that that has to be because of a biological difference between them and others who have taken the exam..

I like to avoid words with several definitions, because it can unfairly imply things about a person that such words are applied to.

We agree that metaphysical Materialism or Physicalism lacks merit as a proposal for Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

You said:

Reductionism is to say of something that it is 'nothing but' - in this case, that humans are 'nothing but' animals, or that the mind is 'nothing but' neurochemicals.

.
I’m saying that “Consciousness” and “Mind” are unnecessary fictions or abstractions from the whole that is the animal. From what you say above, then the philosophy-of-mind position that I subscribe to can be called “Biological-Reductionism”.
.
Maybe I should replace the word “Animalness” with “Biological Reductionism”. …except that I’m not comfortable with all of “Biological-Reductionism” ‘s various meanings.

.I’d said:
.

I've agreed that your own 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one, because it's what your life-experience possibility-story is about.

.
But your Dualism has the burden-of-proof, because of its unnecessary elaborateness. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I’ve sometimes guessed about people’s positions here, and not always correctly.

.

But we've very much lost touch with the understanding that gives rise to this perspective. We nowadays are very grounded in 'objectivism' - that what is real is what is 'out there'

.
I feel that the person (animal) is the essential, central and primary component of hir (his/her) world. …and that the 1st-person point-of-view is the only really valid one.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I subscribe to a version of science-of-mind Physicalism (pomp) — Michael Ossipoff

I meant "a version of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism..."

Michael Ossipoff

Michael, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your metaphysics probably is the antithesis of what you are seeking. It is one brute fact after another and there seems to be an endless steam of them to support your view of life. Maybe, if you are interested in a parsimonious philosophy, you might want exam[ine] your posts, and as an exercise, number each of your brute facts and then trying to limit them somehow? — Rich

Well, since it's you who say that my metaphysics is full of brute-facts, then I suggest that it is you who need to specify them.

Michael Ossipoff

Basically that is all that it is.

You have your IF statements (and there are tons of them in your posts, as I said they are ceaseless), and then you have your Then statements which are in almost all cases arguable.

Everyone does this, but the more you have the less parsimonious is your philosophy. It's all OK, I am just not sure whether you recognize the plethora of brute facts in your philosophy.

Here are a couple examples from one sentence.

"I’m saying that “Consciousness” and “Mind” are unnecessary fictions, "

"the whole that is the animal."

You have your IF statements
(and there are tons of them in your posts, as I said they are ceaseless) — Rich

Maybe, by "IF statement", you're referring to a hypothetical fact that is (at least part of) the "if" clause of an if-then statement. I'll just guess that that's what you mean.

And you're saying that all such hypotheticals are "brute-facts". You clearly are quite clueless about what a brute-fact is.

A brute-fact is asserted, posited. It isn't the "if" clause of an if-then statement.

, and then you have your Then statements which are in almost all cases arguable.

Fine. Then you should feel free to name one of mine that is "arguable".

The "Then" clause states a consequence of an "If" clause (which consists of one or more hypothetical "If" facts).

Some If-Then facts are demonstrably true, such as some abstract logical facts, or mathematical theorems.

Of course there can also be If-Then facts which, themselves, are hypothetical and whose truth is part of the "If" clause of another If-Then fact..

As I said, physical worlds aren't as simple as you might like them to be.

For example, a mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "If" clause includes (but isn't limited to) a set of axioms.

Similarly, abstract logical "Then" conclusions demonstrably follow from their "If" clauses.

From the "If" clause consisting of a set of physical laws and quantity-values, there is a demonstrable conclusion, consisting of other quantity-values.

I am just not sure whether you recognize the plethora of brute facts in your philosophy.

Feel free to specify one. You haven't done so yet.

Here are a couple examples from one sentence.

For one thing, your quotes below aren't from my description of my metaphysics. They're from a discussion of philosophy-of-mind, which is another topic.

"I’m saying that “Consciousness” and “Mind” are unnecessary fictions, "

...unnecessary because, by itself, the physical fact of our animal-ness is fully consistent with our experiences.

"the whole that is the animal."

So the animal isn't a whole? If you want to posit some more elaborate nature, or something different from what experience implies, then, unless you can verify it, you're offering an unnecessary, unsupported assumption.

Michael Ossipoff

the whole that is the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

Really Michael, your philosophy is simply an endless stream of IF statements, which are debatable, followed by even more debatable THEN statements. There are so many, it is difficult To know where to begin. I was simply wondering if you realized it. — Michael Ossipoff

Really Michael, your philosophy is simply an endless stream of IF statements, which are debatable, followed by even more debatable THEN statements. — Michael Ossipoff

Good. You've caught on to the fact that Skepticism is about hypothetical "if-then" s. Congratulations.

Not quite sure what you mean by "debatable". Then feel free to debate one.

There are so many, it is difficult To know where to begin.

Then don't.

I've already apologized for the fact that a physical world might not be as simple as you'd like it to be.

I was simply wondering if you realized it.

Yes, I realize that Skepticism is about a system of inter-referring "if-then" s.

Michael Ossipoff

Good. You've caught on to the fact that Skepticism is about hypothetical "if-then" s. Congratulations — Michael Ossipoff

It is a very open ended my metaphysics. If you can state and IF ... Then, then it is approved. Such a metaphysics will pretty much envelop all existing metaphysical ideas. It is wonderfully accepting.

It is a very open ended my metaphysics. If you can state and IF ... Then, then it is approved. Such a metaphysics will pretty much envelop all existing metaphysical ideas. It is wonderfully accepting. — Rich

Thank you.

Yes, it encompasses every self-consistent possibility-story.

All of them. An infinity of them.

But no, I wouldn't say that it envelopes all metaphysicses. Someone brought up that suggestion once here.

Yes, all self-consistent possibility-stories, but no, this metaphysics doesn't "envelope" or include all metaphysicses..

Michael Ossipoff

Noble Dust:

I take it back. I shouldn't say that there's no such thing as bare, pure Consciousness.

There is, for everyone, at the end of lives (or, if you don't believe in reincarnation, at the end of this life), a time, during death, during body-shutdown, when you there's no time, and no knowledge that there ever was time, events, individuality, identity, a life, or a body.

At that time, of course there is what you could call bare, pure Consciousness.

I've been saying, "You are the body.", but, at that time, near shutown, at the end of lives, that can't be said.

Michael Ossipoff

But of course every metaphysics that is contrived to somehow, in its own elaborate way, explain this physical world, can be simulated by Skepticism. ...because, during your life, those metaphysicses can't be distinguished from eachother or from Skepticism.

At the end of this life, that's the only time when the different metaphysics have different conclusions or consequences. At that time, you won't be conscious enough to know that, though. And so the indistinguishableness is never really observed to be breached.

Michael Ossipoff

You just made Skepticism the uber-concept that can "simulate every metaphysics." That gives it all meaning and no meaning.

If people want to know what your personal use of the term Skepticism means, I suggest you write out a hard, clear definition of it.

You just made Skepticism the uber-concept that can "simulate every metaphysics." That gives it all meaning and no meaning. — Thanatos Sand

I'm not quite sure what that means.

Regarding metaphysicses that (maybe via elaborate contrivance) explain this physical world:

Of course every one of them simulates all of the others, during your life, because, during your life, they're all indistinguishable from eachother.

That's all i was saying.

If people want to know what your personal use of the term Skepticism means, I suggest you write out a hard, clear definition of it.

I've defined, at great length and in great detail, the metaphysics that I call Skepticism.

I've also quoted dictionary definitions of skepticism, the common noun.

I've justified Skepticism as the name of my metaphysics, by the fact that complete rejection and avoidance of assumptions is skeptical.

If you have a specific objection to, or question about, Skepticism, feel free to say what it is.

But we've been over this many times already. Must we repeat this conversation forever?

Michael Ossipoff

You just made Skepticism the uber-concept that can "simulate every metaphysics." That gives it all meaning and no meaning.
— Thanatos Sand

I'm not quite sure what that means.

You should know exactly what it means since you, yourself, said it in the bold quote below:

But of course every metaphysics that is contrived to somehow, in its own elaborate way, explain this physical world, can be simulated by Skepticism.

If people want to know what your personal use of the term Skepticism means, I suggest you write out a hard, clear definition of it.

I've defined, at great length and in great detail, the metaphysics that I call Skepticism.

Yes, and that great length has confused things. Again, nobody will know what you mean until you give a hard, clear definition of your personal use of the word "skepticism." If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to do so.

I've also quoted dictionary definitions of skepticism, the common noun.

Except that quoting has been useless, since your personal usage of the word has a different meaning.

I've justified Skepticism as the name of my metaphysics, by the fact that complete rejection and avoidance of assumptions is skeptical.

Except your inclusion of all "if-then" statements counters thins since many "if-then" statements can be assumptions or brute-facts. So, you really need to make that hard, clear definition, and a better one than that "complete rejection."

If you have a specific objection to, or question about, Skepticism, feel free to say what it is.

I just made it in my post above yours, and you haven't addressed that rejection since you refuse to make a hard, clear definition of your personal use of "skepticism."

Except your inclusion of all "if-then" statements counters thins since many "if-then" statements can be assumptions or brute-facts — Thanatos Sand

You could write if-then facts that are brute-facts, as I myself have said.

But what I said was that Skepticism doesn't need or use assumptions, or posit brute-facts.

You can posit brute-fact "if-then"s if you want to.

I'm not positing them. My point was that Skepticism doesn't posit them. Take that as part of the definition of Skepticism.

Many or most other metaphysicses, including Physicalism ("Naturalism") do need and use assumptions, and do posit, and depend on, brute-facts.

That's the difference.

Thanatos has again descended to his full troll-ness, and it's time for me to declare this conversation concluded.

Bye, Thanatos.

Michael Ossipoff

You could write if-then facts that are brute-facts, as I myself have said.

Then your personal usage of Skepticism is no longer a rejection of brute-facts, since you acknowledged--in your bold quote below--your personal use of skepticism is about an endless stream of IF statements that must include many brute facts

Really Michael, your philosophy is simply an endless stream of IF statements, which are debatable, followed by even more debatable THEN statements.
— Michael Ossipoff

Good. You've caught on to the fact that Skepticism is about hypothetical "if-then" s. Congratulations.

So, since your personal usage of "Skepticism" no longer rejects all brute-facts, you really should write a hard clear definition of your personal usage of the word.

And since I'm the one actually making my arguments, and you're the one making personal attacks, the only one who has descended to his full troll-ness is you.

I'm not positing them. My point was that Skepticism doesn't posit them. Take that as part of the definition of Skepticism.

No, I've shown very well, in my last few posts, you haven't said this at all.

Many or most other metaphysicses, including Physicalism ("Naturalism") do need and use assumptions, and do posit, and depend on, brute-facts.

As, clearly, does your personal use of "skepticism."

So, not only have you been trolling your last few posts, your decidedly inconsistent and contradictory personal use of the term "skepticism" has been trolling, a clear avoidance of making an actual argument and facing its criticisms.