tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4549218850437104551..comments2024-03-29T04:58:54.003-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Nagel and his critics, Part VEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger223125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87532098003145227942013-03-26T00:34:19.444-07:002013-03-26T00:34:19.444-07:00Lol!Lol!The Bodhisattva Warriornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83132808313081523662013-01-17T00:03:41.400-08:002013-01-17T00:03:41.400-08:00I apologize if this is out of place, but would any...I apologize if this is out of place, but would anybody here care to address this: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/why-am-i-doing-this/ ?<br />I've<br />grown to enjoy your collective dialogue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14927348145552688046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66751902995123502392013-01-01T17:08:37.155-08:002013-01-01T17:08:37.155-08:00Well, we are in agreement then, and we can drop th...<i>Well, we are in agreement then, and we can drop this tedious non-argument. <br /><br />Of course, just saying x is natural does not actually go very far towards “accounting” for x, at least in my universe. <br /></i><br /><br />If you think that intentionality is "natural" but not naturalistic/materialistic as I said (please to do not quote me out of context) then I suppose we are in agreement. <br /><br />Your second paragraph is surprisingly correct but it seems to work against you since all you offered here was a label. In fact, your whole argument is based on a label, namely the label <i>natural</i>. But like I said, you can call it "natural", "pixie dust" or "potato salad" and it wouldn't really make a difference, since it is after all just a label.<br /><br />What needs to be done in order to account for intentionality in a materialistic world (or your universe if you want to call it that) is an explication of how you get from a random, mindless, non-teleological reality to the existence of intentionality (and that is just the first step).<br /><br />That has not been done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17923386973123600142012-12-31T15:01:11.461-08:002012-12-31T15:01:11.461-08:00Let me explain this in a very simple way, imagine ...Let me explain this in a very simple way, imagine a box called universe, inside the box resides a simgle block that moves to the left and only to the left of any given observer. One of the observers believe that for every phenonema there is a simetrical phenomena that must occur in that box.<br />This means that there must be something moving to the right, however inside the box there is nothing but this block moving to the left. So this person's metaphysics, or thesis or theory can not account for the movement in the box.<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79741302295694000742012-12-31T14:48:14.335-08:002012-12-31T14:48:14.335-08:00It has already been noted by myself and at least o...<i>It has already been noted by myself and at least one other that according to A-T philosophy intentionality is natural</i><br /><br />Well, we are in agreement then, and we can drop this tedious non-argument. <br /><br />Of course, just saying x is natural does not actually go very far towards “accounting” for x, at least in my universe. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2259556167389676302012-12-31T13:28:31.914-08:002012-12-31T13:28:31.914-08:00a pre-scientific sensibility. It is in the process...<i>a pre-scientific sensibility. It is in the process of being replaced by genuine understanding.</i><br /><br />First off, materialism is a pre-scientific sensibility stemming all the way back to the Ancient Greeks. Did you even know that? Or did you think that materialism magically appeared during the scientific revolution? OR do you think that materialism has anything to do with science? Or do you think that science would even be possible if you existed in a materialistic world? <br /><br />Yes, that’s right. If we were living in a materialistic world science would be practically impossible (especially in the realist sense). Learn it and stop trying to hide behind words like <i>science</i>, which have nothing to do with your materialistic beliefs.<br /><br />OK, so if intentionality is in the process of being replaced by “genuine understand” (lol, can’t help but laugh at crap like that – it’s called promissory materialism if you ever read Popper, who am I assuming you never did), then show us how materialism does it, with its “genuine understanding”. No more blind materialistic faith, time for you to put some substance behind your claims. Either show us or give it a rest.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24372051879362245242012-12-31T13:27:55.770-08:002012-12-31T13:27:55.770-08:00In other words, you can’t or won’t account for the...<i>In other words, you can’t or won’t account for them at all, you are just waving your flag and evading the question, just like you evaded my request that you specify how your account is not natural.</i><br /><br />With each subsequent response you are making yourself even more stupid. It has already been noted by myself and at least one other that according to A-T philosophy intentionality is <i>natural</i>. I have also made the distinction between natural and naturalistic, something you obviously do not understand. <br /><br />Like I said, I am not here to educate you so if you want an exposition of intentionality in A-T terms you will need to do the work yourself. There are also several other non-naturalistic explanations of intentionality that you can explore as well. The difference is, no one in the right mind would contest that A-T for example does not provide an account of intentionality since teleology (final causality) is a fundamental aspect of reality. For materialism this is not the case, since materialism is devoid of final causality. So the very fact that you are hinting that a metaphysic, which is holistic and teleological cannot provide and account of intentionality (which is teleological) is nothing short of stupid and ignorant.<br /><br />I am also inclined to believe after reading your posts that you don’t even know/understand your own beliefs, which is quite pathetic.<br /><br />So evidently you’re getting desperate and trying to shift the burden of proof.<br /><br />Again, you cannot provide a materialistic account of any of the three, so you fail miserably at making your beliefs even intelligible.<br /><br /><i>Your lack of ability to process a simple analogy is not a very good advertisement for your philosophy.</i><br /><br />Your analogy is simply wrong and inapplicable. There is really nothing to understand. And this is where you analogy fails:<br /><br /><i>They still were quite capable of talking about fire, and about differing capabalities of different substances to combust.</i><br /><br />As I said earlier, free will, intentionality and qualia are essential aspects of the mind. To talk about mind without subjective experience, intentionality and semantic meaning and a free will which underscores our intellectual apparatus is to simply talk nonsense or talk about a construct of some materialistic, idiotic imagination. Nothing more. You are trying to use alchemy here in order to turn the mind into matter or some sort (still waiting for you to explain to us what this thing called “matter” is btw). You are beyond the point of ridiculous, not only because you’re wrong but because after being corrected repeatedly you still insist on your wrongheadedness. <br /><br /><i>But “intentionality”, at least in the way the term is deployed by people like you, smells like another kind phlogiston, a quaintly semi-magical substance</i><br /><br />This is one good example of how after being corrected by two separate posters, you still insist on propagating such mental pollution. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself like this? A-T philosophy does not treat intentionality like you think it does, so once again your analogy fails. Teleology is a cause not a substance you fool. At this point you need to read about A-T philosophy so you can (a) understand it a little and (b) if you are to criticize it to at least do it properly. Either that, or appeal to ignorance and stop wasting our time.<br /><br />Continued...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3348629484710234332012-12-31T11:09:54.891-08:002012-12-31T11:09:54.891-08:00As I already told you, Aristotelian-Thomistic meta...<i>As I already told you, Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics do a fine job of accounting for such realities for the simple reason that their framework is more comprehensive and rational.</i><br /><br />In other words, you can’t or won’t account for them at all, you are just waving your flag and evading the question, just like you evaded my request that you specify how your account is not natural.<br /><br />If you give me an account in your supernatural or unnatural metaphysics of how qualia etc work, I’ll do the same in mine. Fair is fair.<br /><br /><i>The problem is that free will, intentionality and qualia are essential and indispensable aspects the mind. What your silly parody (it's self-defeating by the way and I will show you how) does is treat them as unreal. </i><br /><br />Your lack of ability to process a simple analogy is not a very good advertisement for your philosophy. <br /><br />Phlogiston was a substance posited to explain the phenomenon of combustion. Phlogisticated substances were those capable of burning. When the theory was dropped in favor of a more accurate theory (oxidation), the people who dropped it were not thereby eliminativists on the topic of fire. They still were quite capable of talking about fire, and about differing capabalities of different substances to combust. They just had a better conceptual vocabulary for doing so. I suppose you could accuse them of being “eliminativists” about phlogiston, and no doubt people did, but who cares?<br /><br />Similarly, nobody here is eliminating the mind or its capacity to represent the external world. But “intentionality”, at least in the way the term is deployed by people like you, smells like another kind phlogiston, a quaintly semi-magical substance posited to explain a phenomenon that is mysterious to a pre-scientific sensibility. It is in the process of being replaced by genuine understanding. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1537956892194590352012-12-31T09:48:36.907-08:002012-12-31T09:48:36.907-08:00Who in the world makes up these rules? Why should ...<i>Who in the world makes up these rules? Why should I have to “account for” something whereas you seem to be excused from that requirement?</i><br /><br />You are required to account for intentionality/free will/qualia because all three are in violent contradiction with your belief in metaphysical materialism. As I already told you, Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics do a fine job of accounting for such realities for the simple reason that their framework is more comprehensive and rational. I'm not here to educate you, so if you want to know more about the A-T treatment of these concept, pick up a book and learn.<br /><br />You on the other hand have not and are incapable of providing us with an account for these three given materialism. To those of us that understand the questions at hand, this is no surprise since materialism essentially eschews these things as unreal.<br /><br />In addition, you fail to comment on practically everything I said. Again, that is no coincidence. You really don't know what you're talking about, hence the irrelevant and quite frankly simplistic remarks and protests.<br /><br />To let me put it simply to you. If you think intentionality, qualia and free will can be accounted for in your materialistic belief system, then show us how. If you don't know how then simply appeal to ignorance. If you don't think it can be done (like I do) then stop wasting our time. It's that simple.<br /><br /><i>To claim that phlogiston is inadequate to an understanding of matter is nothing short of denying the very thing in question.</i><br /><br />First of all, you need to explain to us what this thing called "matter" is. I asked you before and you still have not provided us with an answer.<br /><br />The problem is that free will, intentionality and qualia are essential and indispensable aspects the mind. What your silly parody (it's self-defeating by the way and I will show you how) does is treat them as unreal. What you are indirectly claiming is that one can reject all three and still have a coherent view of mind, which is not only false but laughable. If you don't have intentionality then your thoughts simply have no <i>aboutness</i> in relation to the world, and that would render them (thoughts) incoherent (that is known as a reductio ad absurdum btw). But the grave irony here is that once I pushed you into the corner, you've resorted to embrace eliminativism, which is precisely the point I was trying to make. So not only did you fall flat on your face, you actually proved my point for me! ;-)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46574024849084688632012-12-30T17:39:46.191-08:002012-12-30T17:39:46.191-08:00You have it all ass-ends backwards. It’s YOU that ...<i>You have it all ass-ends backwards. It’s YOU that needs to tell US what accounts for intentionality given naturalism/materialism</i><br /><br />Who in the world makes up these rules? Why should I have to “account for” something whereas you seem to be excused from that requirement?<br /><br /><i>To claim that free will, intentionality and qualia are inadequate to an understanding of the mind (rigorous or otherwise) is nothing short of denying the very thing in question, the mind.</i><br /><br />To claim that phlogiston is inadequate to an understanding of matter is nothing short of denying the very thing in question.<br />To claim that luminferous aether is inadequate to an understanding of light is nothing short of denying the very thing in question.<br />To claim that the four humors are inadequate to an understanding of physiology is nothing short of denying the very thing in question.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79532128456767508542012-12-30T15:09:53.807-08:002012-12-30T15:09:53.807-08:00Correction:
that take the metaphysic *of natural...Correction:<br /><br /> that take the metaphysic *of naturalismAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47784364158804130112012-12-30T15:07:35.182-08:002012-12-30T15:07:35.182-08:00You must work in the Department of Tautology.
It...<i> You must work in the Department of Tautology. </i><br /><br />It’s not my fault you don’t know enough to understand what I’m telling you.<br /><br /><br />The irony, which is inherent in your stupidity, is all too loud when you equivocate natural with naturalistic. While intentionality is perfectly natural in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysic, it is certainly not naturalistic. That is the distinction you’re are either incapable of grasping or simply refuse to do so. As another anon pointed out:<br /><br /><i> But he is also saying that mainstream metaphysical naturalism (which operates purely using material and efficient causes) cannot account for them. Ironically, they are "natural" things which create explanatory problems for naturalism.</i><br /><br />To that I would also add that it operates on reductionism and nominalism, which exacerbate the problem, making it impossible for naturalism to account for them.<br /><br /><br /><i> Saying that "naturalism can't account for x" doesn't tell me what you think CAN account for x.</i><br /><br />You have it all ass-ends backwards. It’s YOU that needs to tell US what accounts for intentionality given naturalism/materialism. You simply can’t do it, otherwise you would have already done it. Trying to play with words like natural vs supernatural like an amateur isn’t going to cut it. Do you think that it’s a “lucky” coincidence that the few naturalists (Theists too) that take the metaphysic to its logical conclusion end up with some form of eliminativism?<br /><br /><i> In my opinion, intentionality and qualia are perfectly natural, and free will can be split into a couple of different concepts some of which are nonexistent and others which are natural.</i><br /><br />Smacking a label on them doesn’t do anything for you. I think I already parodied this failed attempt by mentioning potato salad, did I not?<br /><br />What I want from you is to start from materialism and the assumptions it makes about the nature of reality and show me how this reality can account for intentionality, qualia and free will.<br /><br /><i> More fundamentally, these are all what I call broken concepts. They are notions that are perfectly alright for everyday use (or are slightly tarted-up versions of everyday notions) but are clearly inadequate to a rigorous understanding of the mind. The supposedly intractable problems are a side-effect of employing technical rigor to concepts that are inherently not capable of technically rigorous definition.</i><br /><br />The only thing broken is materialism. It’s materialism that is inadequate to account for them. These concepts are too rich and too big to fit in the narrow-minded view of materialism. You honestly have no idea what you’re talking about if you truly believe that last paragraph you typed up.<br /><br />To claim that free will, intentionality and qualia are inadequate to an understanding of the mind (rigorous or otherwise) is nothing short of denying the very thing in question, the mind. So like I said, you either have no idea of what you’re talking about or implicitly have accepted eliminativism and evidently have denied the existence of the mind.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25804322018507309892012-12-27T20:54:06.785-08:002012-12-27T20:54:06.785-08:00You know I think you two agree with each other is ...You know I think you two agree with each other is just a matter of terminology that you disagree.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68984496703511277312012-12-27T20:05:10.990-08:002012-12-27T20:05:10.990-08:00I think what he's trying to say is that intent...I think what he's trying to say is that intentionality, qualia, etc are all natural, if we take "natural" to mean "part of our observed world." But he is also saying that mainstream metaphysical naturalism (which operates purely using material and efficient causes) cannot account for them. Ironically, they are "natural" things which create explanatory problems for naturalism. Perhaps we could just give the Dennett treatment to these concepts.Another Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73305565148898500462012-12-27T19:41:43.218-08:002012-12-27T19:41:43.218-08:00They (qualia, intentionality, free will) are not n...<i>They (qualia, intentionality, free will) are not naturalistic because naturalism simply cannot account for them.</i><br /><br />You must work in the Department of Tautology. <br /><br /><i>I read you statement just fine.</i><br /><br />Obviously you didn't, or you were deliberately distorting it.<br /><br />There seem to be the following possibilities:<br /><br />- intentionality (or any of the other things that you feel are mysterious) is a perfectly natural phenomenon like any other.<br /><br />- intentionality does not exist.<br /><br />- intentionality exists but is supernatural or in some other way not natural.<br /><br />So pick one already, or if there's another alternative, tell me what it is. Saying that "naturalism can't account for x" doesn't tell me what you think CAN account for x.<br /><br />In my opinion, intentionality and qualia are perfectly natural, and free will can be split into a couple of different concepts some of which are nonexistent and others which are natural.<br /><br />More fundamentally, these are all what I call broken concepts. They are notions that are perfectly alright for everyday use (or are slightly tarted-up versions of everyday notions) but are clearly inadequate to a rigorous understanding of the mind. The supposedly intractable problems are a side-effect of employing technical rigor to concepts that are inherently not capable of technically rigorous definition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65883616418147690332012-12-27T15:49:23.756-08:002012-12-27T15:49:23.756-08:00So you are saying they are supernatural? If not, w...<i>So you are saying they are supernatural? If not, what are you saying?</i><br /><br />I am saying (and I am quoting myself here):<br /><br />They (qualia, intentionality, free will) are not naturalistic because naturalism simply cannot account for them.<br /><br />The thesis that not only myself but many others (including materialists - hence eliminativism) is that naturalism cannot account for them. Period. Whether you call them "supernatural", "pixie dust" or "potato salad" makes no difference.<br /><br />So, if you think that naturalism can account for them (without being dishonest, committing equivocation fallacies and or appealing to Aristotelian principles) then show us how.<br /><br /><i>Learn to read, my original statement was quite precise.</i><br /><br />I read you statement just fine. It was nonsensical and so I parodied your claims by referencing unicorns and Cartesian demons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24999730021807148782012-12-25T15:16:48.314-08:002012-12-25T15:16:48.314-08:00@grodrigues,
I'm with Eduardo on this one: XD...@grodrigues,<br /><br />I'm with Eduardo on this one: XD!<br />I mention a little high school calculus and out comes the cohomology! I draw the line at homology. Er. Not line. Geodesic? One dimensional simplex? That one. I draw the 1-simplex at homology.reighleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08870026248363217644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13904653364922797312012-12-25T14:11:27.274-08:002012-12-25T14:11:27.274-08:00Thanks Grodrigues, this makes things easier XD.Thanks Grodrigues, this makes things easier XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19754013161996525032012-12-25T13:45:59.373-08:002012-12-25T13:45:59.373-08:00@reighley:
"It's small as long as the in...@reighley:<br /><br />"It's small as long as the independent variable is also small. It isn't bounded or anything. You control the error by staying close to home. Go far away and you might need a new theory."<br /><br />Yes, that is correct, you can perform the construction only locally. What you *can* do is either prove that all the local constructions "glue" to a global construction or if they do not, classify the obstructions to do the patching up. To not threadjck the thread any further, the relevant buzzwords here are sheaf theory and sheaf cohomology.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44082449174541836802012-12-24T20:29:23.721-08:002012-12-24T20:29:23.721-08:00If you are planning to visit India, so don't f...If you are planning to visit India, so don't forget to visit their capital New Delhi, and book <a href="http://www.independentescortsindelhis.com" rel="nofollow">Delhi escorts</a> while your tour in capital. India is known for beautiful girls everywhere in all regions specially in DelhiAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08728729613733478597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34881271430282039032012-12-24T18:37:22.514-08:002012-12-24T18:37:22.514-08:00I haven't taken mathematical physics yet, I ha...I haven't taken mathematical physics yet, I have really bad mathematical abilities XD so I have no idea which book they use but I just have to look at the university site to know which book they use XD, so is no big deal. <br /><br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3952221815067038122012-12-24T18:07:54.118-08:002012-12-24T18:07:54.118-08:00@grodrigues,
"If the series converges (the fu...@grodrigues,<br />"If the series converges (the function is analytic) the higher order terms *are* small and you can control the error term."<br /><br />It's small as long as the independent variable is also small. It isn't bounded or anything. You control the error by staying close to home. Go far away and you might need a new theory.<br /><br />I'm not saying that the method is invalid, just that it is an approximation and we should never expect to arrive at completely general laws of nature this way.<br /><br />Everything has its energy scale. <br /><br />@Eduardo,<br />"we gotta analyse a physics book, especially one of mathematical physics to know what they are up to."<br /><br />It would be great to threadjack Feser's combox with a critical review of a textbook on mathematical physics. Which one are you using Eduardo? And is it available for the Kindle?reighleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08870026248363217644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-133014848511782092012-12-24T16:58:33.704-08:002012-12-24T16:58:33.704-08:00Oh the confusion to differentiate all of you Anons...Oh the confusion to differentiate all of you Anons XD.<br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27696020362060420972012-12-24T16:39:56.577-08:002012-12-24T16:39:56.577-08:00They (qualia, intentionality, free will) are not n...<i>They (qualia, intentionality, free will) are not naturalistic because naturalism simply cannot account for them.</i><br /><br />So you are saying they are supernatural? If not, what are you saying?<br /><br /><i>Also, just because something can be well defined that does not mean it's real and natural. Unicorns and Cartesia demons can both be well defined yet neither is real or natural.</i><br /><br />Learn to read, my original statement was quite precise.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70580312703528036972012-12-24T14:31:03.493-08:002012-12-24T14:31:03.493-08:00Grodrigues is correct XD.
But we gotta analyse a ...Grodrigues is correct XD.<br /><br />But we gotta analyse a physics book, especially one of mathematical physics to know what they are up to.<br />The standard physics book treats more simple problems so it might not be enough to conclude anything.<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.com