It's associated most closely to Husserl, the founder of phenomenology. It's kosher.

Idealism — Banno

Naaah.

Your explanation was faulty. You can’t apply physical laws when talking about minds. It’s as ridiculous as claiming your mind has a mass or color. — khaled

My explanation was correct, but your mind causes nothing to happen at all, not even understanding, so it has many limitations.

Again, M1 can imply P2 but doesn’t necessarily cause it. — khaled

Or it can cause it... Or make it more likely. I am not aware of anything in this world that would or could be non causal, that could not have any effect on anything else... That looks like magic thinking to me. It would also break the law of action-reaction, as I explained already.

What role does the mind fulfill? — khaled

Making decisions.

don't see the dispute. — khaled

You said: biology will one day prove that the human mind "does not interfere"; and yet biology itself is a product of the human mind. Any time biologists find something, their mind "interferes". Any time they write down a paper, their mind acts on the world.

Where does the mind come in when chemical energy is converted to some mechanical energy? — khaled

In the decision to do so, apparently.

Does light have a mass?
— Olivier5

Sort of. — khaled

No, it doesn't.

---

Once it become more advanced, it will provide further proof of the ability of the human mind to understand the world, and itself...
— Olivier5

Sure. When was that in dispute? — khaled

When you said:

All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. ... The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here. — khaled

------

Is it not the case that a mind causing something would mean there is a movement for which there is no physical cause?

And is that not an example of a net increase in momentum? — khaled

And what proof do you have of the "net" part? How do you know it doesn't consume say chemical energy?

Natural? Sure.

Physical? Definitely not.

Does your mind have momentum? Mass? Velocity? — khaled

My mind has a certain velocity, not very high. I am trying to improve it by playing blitz chess.

Does light have a mass?

I struggle to see how the word “mind” can ever be applied to something you can pick up. — khaled

You can't pick it up, I agree, but you can lose it.

Biology is not that advanced.
— Olivier5

Sure. But once it becomes that advanced.... — khaled

Once it become more advanced, it will provide further proof of the ability of the human mind to understand the world, and itself...

First, do you agree that they contradict? — khaled

I don't.

The assumption that thoughts and language say something meaningful and true, is not the same as the thought that they effectively cause physical changes. You can have the former without the latter. — khaled

You can't have the former without the latter. It would imply that for a human being, knowing the truth about some case is irrelevant to whatever he or she can do about the case, i.e. that knowledge is powerless. But if this is true, if truth and knowledge are indeed powerless, why do you even bother with them, Khaled?

Because intuitively you suspect that knowledge is power.

Sure but we’re not talking about physics are we?

In fact we’re talking about something non physical. A mind. Asking whether or not it causes physical changes. — khaled

We are talking of the mind-body problem in a scientific, i.e. 'physical' conceptual frame. That is precisely why you raise physical laws such as the conservation of energy in this discussion. Otherwise, drop that argument.

What is the mind, is part of that whole question. You can't assume the answer before solving the riddle. You cannot assume it is some metaphysical or supernatural thing. It looks very natural to me.

All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. — khaled

I don't think so. Biology is not that advanced.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here.

The very concept of 'proof' requires or assumes that human thoughts and language can say something meaningful and true about the world. It therefore assumes the existence and effectiveness of human minds, and has no meaning outside this assumption.

So what baggage would that be? In a few well chosen words please?

You can do it.

That's not a logical principle. — khaled

It's a principle of physics though.

The weather can affect me but I can't affect the weather. — khaled

The weather you are exposed to can affect you, and in turn you can somewhat control the weather you are exposed to. For one thing, you can travel to sunnier shores. For another, you can take shelter to reduce your exposure to adverse weather, eg cold or rain. Certain species hibernate to skip the colder months.

And what would the mind affecting the body look like, exactly?

It would look very familiar, like a normal conversation between people, like a sportsman running an obstacle course, like a mathematician writing down on paper the proof of a theorem, or like two chess players fighting over the board. None of these simple, familiar event can be understood without recourse to some capacity of symbolic language (and thus abstract human thoughts) to produce physical outcomes.

How do you square it with conservation of momentum and energy?

I don't know, but it squares well with the principle of action-reaction.

What baggage would that be?

To all action, a reaction.

What is being disputed is that the mind affects the brain or body "top down". — khaled

If the body can affect the mind, then it logically follows that the mind can affect the body.

This probably has to do with people's tendency to strongly identify with their thoughts, their beliefs, to see them as parts of their person. So that when someone in any way steps on the metaphorical toes of those beliefs (such as by discussing them, less or more philosophically), people feel like someone actually physically stepped on their toes, or worse. — baker

Yes, something like that. The fear of discovering that there’s no firm conceptual ground under their certitudes.

I love the White Stripes, and would rather see this as an homage or a citation.

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

In Spain, the best upper sets do it
Lithuanians and Letts do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

The Dutch in old Amsterdam do it
Not to mention the Finns
Folks in Siam do it; think of Siamese twins

Some Argentines without means do it
People say in Boston even beans do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

Romantic sponges, they say, do it
Oysters down in Oyster Bay do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

Cold Cape Cod clams 'gainst their wish do it
Even lazy jellyfish do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

Electric eels, I might add, do it
Though it shocks 'em I know
Why ask if shads do it? Waiter, bring me shad roe

In shallow shoals English soles do it
Goldfish in the privacy of bowls do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

These two galls have nice chemistry.

Nonetheless, I'm willing to go against the grain in discussions, but it seems like a pretty steep hill to climb, and will I learn anything new about my chosen area? Seems doubtful. — GLEN willows

We eat materialists for breakfast on this forum. Ha ha

All this being said, there might be something in the subjects of philosophy that irrates people. From Socrates to Descartes to Nietzsche, many philosophers have passed for assholes.

. You're right - we all push people's buttons and I can be passive-aggressive although I HATE admitting it haha. — GLEN willows

I used to love pushing the buttons of materialists, if you’re game.

It's hard for me - being socially not exactly "astute - to sometimes find a balance. — GLEN willows

It’s hard for all of us, but fortunately, failure to communicate properly is not lethal.

I’ve been on online forums since the 90’s. I’ve come to a few conclusions. One is that we’re all the troll of somebody else. By that, I mean that it is a lot of fun to trigger internet anger from the relative safety of your armchair, to push on people’s buttons and see them jump. And even the most quiet poster plays that game once in a while.

On another site there’s this poster — Walter — who is calm incarnated. He is always self-loathing, and never ever says anything aggressive about others. I like him very much, he’s a wise man. Yet his very calm composure does irritate folks quite a lot, and is meant to destabilize them and make them look like fools. So in a sense, Walter is something of an « anti-troll » in that his behavior is a polar opposite to usual trolling behavior. And yet he manages to piss off trolls mightily. So he is the troll of the trolls.

On the OP, Internet nastiness is often related to anonymity. One can express oneself on the Internet without risking much social capital, and this encourages nastiness. Whereas in real life, an overly nasty person would often lose all his friends and end up all alone, the same does not apply on virtual message boards and twitter, where you can change ID.

So you’re just another nitpicker, or is there some point to your never ending questions?

Penny-wise philosophers abound. They can get the tiny tiny details right, but the big picture will forever escape hem. They just lose the plot, like you do here, moving from cancel culture to genital mutilations to painkillers to what not, like a philosophical headless chicken running around the yard...

'Deep' is relative. Here it tends to mean: anything deeper than Beyoncé. This means even Ariana Grande may qualify. Nick Cave passes the bar any day.


This is about death, a subject often touched upon by Brassens but as usual with him its a funny song that puts a nice spin on the whole idea of dying, as long as you rest in the right spot.


Plea to be buried on the beach at Sète

The Grim Reaper who never forgave me
For having sown flowers in the holes of his nose
Is pursuing me with foolish zeal
And so surrounded closely by burials
I saw it fit to update my will
To pen down a codicil

Dip in the blue ink of the Gulf of Lion
Dip deep your quil, oh my old tabellion
And with your most beautiful handwriting
Note what ought to happen to my body
When my soul and he will no longer agree
But on a single point: the break-up

When my soul takes its flight on the horizon
Towards those of Gavroche and Mimi Pinson
Those of stray cats and street boys
May my body be brought back to the native soil
In a Paris-Méditerranée sleeper train
Terminus at Sète station

My family vault, alas, is not brand new
Commonly speaking, it's as full as an egg
And by the time someone gets out
It may be late and I can't tell
These good people to push themselves a bit
Make room for the youth, if you will

Right by the sea, a stone's throw from the blue waves
Dig if possible a soft little hole
A small comfortable niche
Nearby my childhood friends, the dolphins
Along this shore where the sand is so fine
On the Corniche Beach

It's a beach where, even when he's furious
Neptune never takes himself too seriously
Where when a ship wrecks
The captain shouts "I am the master on board,
Save your souls, wine and pastis first,
Everyone gets his own bottle and courage!"

And that's where once at the age of fifteen
When having fun alone is no longer enough
I knew my first passion
From a mermaid, a siren
I received, of love, the first lesson
Swallowed the first fishbone

With all due respect for Paul Valéry
I, the humble troubadour, rise on him
The good master will forgive me
But at least, if his verses are better than mine
Let my cemetery be more marine than his
No matter what the locals opine

This tomb, sandwiched between water and sky
Won't give a sad mood to the scene
But instead an indefinable charm
Bathers will use it as a screen
To change outfits and little children
Will say: "Look, a sand castle!"

Is it too much to ask? On my little plot
Please plant some kind of pine
Umbrella pine by preference
That will shield against sunstroke
The good friends coming on my concession
For affectionate reverences

Sometimes from Spain, sometimes from Italy
All loaded with perfumes and pretty musics
The Mistral and the Tramontane [local winds]
On my last sleep will pour the echoes
Of villanelle one day, one day of fandango
Of tarantella, of sardana

And when, taking my mound for a pillow
A mergirl will gently come to rest
With less than nothing for costume
I ask forgiveness in advance to Jesus
If the shadow of my cross leans slightly on her
For a little posthumous pleasure

Poor pharaoh kings, poor Napoleon
Poor great heros lying in the Pantheon
Poor ashes of consequence
You will come to envy the eternal holidayer
Who rides the wave dreaming
Who spends his death on vacation

OK, sure "capable of making mistakes" has a different sense than "capable of being mistaken"; the latter could apply to people or claims, whereas the former would seem a bit odd if you tried to apply it to claims. Language is not as tidy as we might like it to be. — Janus

Still, I believe the sentence "claim X is false" is clearer and more appropriate than "claim X is fallible".

If the word 'fallible' introduces confusion, the same idea can be stated without it: the value of intersubjectivity has a lot to do with the assumption that each individual observer may report incorrect observations, or be biased in a way that other observers may not be. In such an epistemology, having one's observations checked by others brings value, especially if the different observers are independent from one another and hence can be assumed to have different biases.

But let me ask you this: the argument those in severe pain make, that they deserve to be prescribed special painkillers because their extreme pain compromises the quality of their life; how is that different from those whose quality of life is compromised because they cannot enjoy intercourse in the way their souls feel it ought to be enjoyed due to their gender-identity? — Todd Martin

I would say it is very much different. A pain is an objective fact, and the relief brought by painkillers too. But ‘enjoy intercourse the way it ought to be enjoyed’ defines nothing clear. How is intercourse supposed to be enjoyed? And how the fuck will surgery help you get there?

I was taking 'fallible' as meaning "capable of making mistakes". Defined as such, it does not apply to statements and claims, for which the correct adjective would be 'false'.

More importantly, the point I was making was about fallible observers.

You are right, I do have some reason, which I guess is that genital mutilations may permanently reduce someone's sexual pleasure.

Claims are said to be fallible precisely insofar as they can be true or not. — Janus

Irrelevant to anything. The point was that individual observers are fallible, hence the power of intersubjectivity. Banjo keeps trying to misunderstand this very simple idea that two minds are better than one. Don't play his games.

I don't imagine humankind could survive the fall of modern civilisation. There are too many of us, and we are too alienated from the processes of production to retreat to the rural idyll should something fry all the microchips — counterpunch

Farmers would still farm the world over, I think, with less output probably.

that pain in your toe, for example. You cannot be wrong about that; it's one of the few places were certainty is certain...
— Banno — Banno

One of the few places, maybe, but 1) human beings can still misrepresent their pain, they can lie about it (or did you believe Trump really had bone spurs?); and 2) outside of these few places, human beings remain fallible observers. Therefore it is good practice to try and compare observations made by several people, whenever possible, in order to firm up our collective knowledge of stuff. That's the idea encapsulated in "intersubjectivity".

despite my providing examples in which observers cannot be fallible. — Banno

If you provided any evidence that human beings are infallible, I must have missed it. An observer can lie, try to deceive, or he can be inaccurate or careless in his observations. Such things are known to happen, believe it or not. Which is why intersubjectivity is so important in the quest for objectivity: it allows some filtering out of individual subjective biases.

No, I just mean that I have had some American friends having babies here in Europe, where doctors don't typically do circumcision. And those friends have agonized a bit on the issue because they were circumcised as most kids in the US, and raised with this idea that it's 'proper' but now they live in a different culture where the idea is frown upon. So I tell them to relax and let their kids' genitals the way nature or God made them.

I don't object to medical surgery, but I do object to genital mutilations on children.

I always try to be clear. An observer is subjective, hence fallible. A claim is not an observer. A claim can just be true or not.

You understand the difference between the concept of observer and the concept of claim, don't you? You are just playing stupid now.

That's the thing with human beings: you can't always trust what they say. Sometimes they even lie to themselves.

So, it seems to me that it would be an error to suppose that a claim is fallible because it is subjective. — Banno

And it seems to me you are trying to confuse yourself. While an observer is always fallible -- that is to say that he may get some observations seriously wrong, either because of some bias or because he's lying -- a claim cannot logically speaking be said to be fallible: it's just true, not true, or somewhere in the middle.

fallible because it is subjective? But that's not right. Let's look at something really subjective - that pain in your toe, for example. You cannot be wrong about that; it's one of the few places were certainty is certain... — Banno

What about the case of the amputee who feels pain in his missing arm? And people can also lie, or exaggerate.

I want to understand what is added by the word subjective: compare the following to what you said above:
It explains how we build some extent of objectivity NOT by deleting the observer but on the contrary, by ADDING other observers and comparing MANY observations.

I've dropped the word "subjective"; what difference did it make? — Banno

Why, then you do not mention the fact that each individual observer is necessarily subjective and therefore fallible. The reason one needs more than one observer is thus obscured, it's not explicit anymore.

Meaning?

Yes, that's the general idea.

SO tell me, if the word choice is insignificant, why "intersubjective" rather than "objective" or even "shared"? — Banno

Because it describes very precisely what happens. It's therefore apt and correct. "Shared" is too vague and objectivity is different from intersubjectivity.

Your turn: what is it in that word that scares you so much?