tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post81070203464670837..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Nagel and his critics, Part VIIIEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger139125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57433770293398318542013-05-01T16:59:25.761-07:002013-05-01T16:59:25.761-07:00It seems clear to me that the notorious closing is...It seems clear to me that the notorious closing is a bit self-contradictory.<br /><br />Though I agree it represents some paranoia about the ID movement, it also mentions concern about scientism. <br /><br />That is, it seems to be a worry that it will fuel the modern dogma that science is the best way to answer metaphysical questions.<br /><br />This is strange, given that Nagel's book is challenging that dogma. Yes, those most beholden to current superstitions are bound to ridicule Nagel. But I don't see how it follows that accommodationism is the proper response.<br /><br />Rather, anyone worried about "creationists" and "triumphant scientists" (as I am) should see Nagel as an ally.Debilishttp://fidedubitandum.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58514970102115135842013-04-06T21:16:39.812-07:002013-04-06T21:16:39.812-07:00have you seen this review?
http://www.partiallyex...have you seen this review?<br /><br />http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/02/07/evolution-is-rigged-a-review-of-thomas-nagels-mind-and-cosmos/<br /><br />It's the most interesting review of Nagel's book that I've come across so far besides your own. I'd very much be interested in your thoughts, especially regarding the usefulness of Nagel's conception of teleology.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12345891202347274863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80375937270570284872013-04-05T22:25:27.138-07:002013-04-05T22:25:27.138-07:00Wasn't saying it was bad, but I was wondering ...Wasn't saying it was bad, but I was wondering more in the why not 100% alley.<br /><br />Well all we need is play around with models XD, and see why they got 60%. That was what I had in mind ahahahahahEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2206374643261860902013-04-05T18:51:08.051-07:002013-04-05T18:51:08.051-07:00Eduardo,
"But even after 200 tries to gather...Eduardo,<br /><br />"But even after 200 tries to gather data they still got 60%... i wonder if they have the reports and scientists comments for everyone ahhhaahahah yeah too lazy to go and find them U_U but that would be an interesting investigation."<br /><br />Actually, 60% with a sample size of 200 is amazingly good. Either <br /><br />the brain is much simpler in terms of its internal representation than we might have guessed, <br /><br />or they are faking their data.<br /><br />or the newspaper is taking liberties with the numbers.reighleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28554095196335212092013-04-05T12:35:16.940-07:002013-04-05T12:35:16.940-07:00I've been lurking and hoping to see some discu...I've been lurking and hoping to see some discussion to help clear up my uninformed understanding of form.<br /><br />It seems the argument regarding geometry is that:<br />1) materialists reject formal causes<br />2) geometric figures (triangles for instance) cannot be completely described without referring to their form (formal cause)<br />3) materialists allow formal causes for geometric shapes.<br />4) this is inconsistent<br /><br />When I think of the 4 causes of something, I mentally think of them as the 4 ways of describing something.<br /><br />When I think of the form of something, I think of its shape. Can something have a shape without formal cause?<br /><br />Where am I going wrong?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43552437478772951182013-04-05T11:36:23.146-07:002013-04-05T11:36:23.146-07:00This is how I would break it down.
"When the...This is how I would break it down.<br /><br />"When they’re starting to fall asleep, researchers woke them up and asked them to describe what they were dreaming about. The procedure was repeated 200 times for each volunteer and their answers were grouped in categories and put in a database. Then the volunteers were scanned again while they were awake and looking at images on a screen. The researchers were then able to detect specific patterns in their brain activities that corresponded with certain visuals."<br /><br />“When they’re starting to fall asleep, researchers woke them up and asked them to describe what they were dreaming about.”<br /><br />“The researchers were then able to detect specific patterns in their brain activities that corresponded with certain visuals.”<br /><br />“woke them up and asked them”<br /><br />“patterns in their brain activities that corresponded with certain visuals.”<br /><br />“asked them”<br /><br />“corresponded”<br /><br />Is it good work? Certainly. Unfortunately, while it does advance scientific knowledge, it does not advance the mind-body problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28310324149535846752013-04-05T01:45:49.081-07:002013-04-05T01:45:49.081-07:00Well this is pretty interesting, but hmmm doesn...Well this is pretty interesting, but hmmm doesn't seem to contradict anything people say here, Feser wrote a post about brain scans hahahhah.<br /><br />But even after 200 tries to gather data they still got 60%... i wonder if they have the reports and scientists comments for everyone ahhhaahahah yeah too lazy to go and find them U_U but that would be an interesting investigation.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17088333686687702942013-04-05T00:15:21.073-07:002013-04-05T00:15:21.073-07:00A little O/T guys.
"Scientists 'read dre...A little O/T guys.<br /><br />"Scientists 'read dreams' using brain scans"<br /><br />"Three people volunteered for this study and they were monitored through MRI scans while they slept. When they’re starting to fall asleep, researchers woke them up and asked them to describe what they were dreaming about. The procedure was repeated 200 times for each volunteer and their answers were grouped in categories and put in a database. Then the volunteers were scanned again while they were awake and looking at images on a screen. The researchers were then able to detect specific patterns in their brain activities that corresponded with certain visuals. For the next step of the experiment, the scientists were then able to predict 60% of the time what the volunteers were dreaming about by studying their brain scans and comparing them to their verbal reports.<br /><br />For the next phase of the study, they want to explore what happens in deeper sleep and whether brain scans can also predict what people feel, smell and do when they are deep in the throes of dreaming. But Dr. Stokes warns that they will not be able to “build a general classifier that could read anybody’s dreams” because each person’s thoughts and dreams are unique and specific to the individual. "<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22031074Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79049276003216132532013-04-03T04:39:08.626-07:002013-04-03T04:39:08.626-07:00Anonymous: "So, if I count three apples, I...Anonymous: "So, if I count three apples, I'm counting qualitative elements of apples which combine with discontinuous number." -- Surely not? Surely you're just counting three things. Anyway, it seems that perhaps your point is just that materialists actually believe in matter and form, not just matter. (Correct?) But it seems that this is just obvious. The interesting thing about the materialist is that he believes that there are no *immaterial* forms, not that he thinks he can dispense with form altogether.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19776695380111518022013-04-02T18:48:18.955-07:002013-04-02T18:48:18.955-07:00Anonymous,
"Well, continuous quantity is exte...Anonymous,<br />"Well, continuous quantity is extension, isn't it."<br /><br />I am perfectly willing, for the purposes of argument, to associate the natural numbers with the category of "quantity" and some topological space (which would provide us with a notion of continuity) with the category of "extension".<br /><br />If we do that though, I think the proposition that materialism deals only with quantity is completely untenable. Historically and conceptually, the theory of matter has always hinged just as much on the way in which it occupies space as with its analysis into atoms and elements. I do not think most self identified materialists would deny the reality of space, extension, and continuum.<br /><br />Are you suggesting that in doing so they have left themselves open to a contradiction?<br /><br />reighleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15682517376675814812013-04-02T18:12:24.225-07:002013-04-02T18:12:24.225-07:00Well, continuous quantity is extension, isn't ...Well, continuous quantity is extension, isn't it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80093502403993330952013-04-02T16:59:29.206-07:002013-04-02T16:59:29.206-07:00Anonymous,
why discontinuous?
given a certain quan...Anonymous,<br />why discontinuous?<br />given a certain quantity : I assert that half of that is also a quantity. Which would place quantities in a continuum.reighleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11089506987127640572013-04-02T14:54:41.475-07:002013-04-02T14:54:41.475-07:00That should be; What to you is quantity?That should be; What to you is quantity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10288109136400798952013-04-02T14:45:51.932-07:002013-04-02T14:45:51.932-07:00Jesse M,
Let us try another way of proceeding.
...Jesse M,<br /><br />Let us try another way of proceeding. <br /><br />What to do you is quantity? What is the source or essence of this quantity?<br /><br />What I'm arguing is not just a matter of definitions. I'm saying that logically discontinuous number must be the basis for all quantity. That is, it is discontinuous number that supplies the ultimately quantitative aspects of the world, the units of plurality, so to speak. So, if I count three apples, I'm counting qualitative elements of apples which combine with discontinuous number. If I measure my table we can reduce the table to its geometric properties, getting rid of the qualities such as colour or hardness. What I'm saying is that these geometric properties are not less combinations of qualities and discontinuous number or units or plurality. Extension, for example, is the extended space measured by quantity. It is quantity plus something else. As quantity is the very measure of extension, it can hardly be only quantity itself. This is what I'm saying. I'm not talking just semantics, but the logical basis of quantity. I think this is important to clear up first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56006178500697897522013-04-02T13:27:46.260-07:002013-04-02T13:27:46.260-07:00...what you seem not to realize is that what exact......what you seem not to realize is that what exactly that subset believes and whether it is actually coherent is very much at issue here! You can't very well say, "Oh well, I'm sure if you asked them *they* would know what the believed and be able to give a coherent account of it all, using *their* definitions." That's just begging the question!DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42220295741793413642013-04-02T13:22:50.433-07:002013-04-02T13:22:50.433-07:00Also, JesseM wrote: "I think it's reasona...Also, JesseM wrote: "I think it's reasonable to focus the discussion on that subset of materialists who share the conceptions of "modern science" that Dr. Feser was talking about" -- riiight. And was I suggesting anything to the contrary?DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7502449176335714212013-04-02T13:17:00.537-07:002013-04-02T13:17:00.537-07:00JesseM wrote: "I think the reflection needed ...JesseM wrote: "I think the reflection needed is just about making sure there is a shared mutual understanding between the participants. As long as they are mutually clear, it's fine for them to stipulate meanings that don't necessarily precisely equate to common usage--often in philosophical discussions it's useful to adopt clear but narrow technical definitions..." -- Okay, but you're begging the question and missing the point: the point was that 'shared mutual understanding' is no guarantee that a stipulated definition *actually* makes sense and comports with what the stipulators of that definition actually know; so it begs the question to insist that the only reflection that is needed is to ensure that there is a 'shared mutual understanding between participants.' As long as the participants are all equally oblivious to their own ignorance and confusion they can perfectly well come to a 'shared mutual understanding' but still be up shit creek as far as actually understanding the supposed referent - e.g., *reality* - of their discourse.DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81948556480159814842013-04-02T13:08:05.358-07:002013-04-02T13:08:05.358-07:00DavidM wrote: "I would stop you right there: ...DavidM wrote: "I would stop you right there: Is that true? Or just a popular myth? Has materialism really been shaped by real scientific findings? I highly doubt it. Could you give an example?"<br /><br />JesseM replied: "The example is exactly the one we have been discussing about the behavior of "material" following uniform mathematical laws..." <br /><br />...So what exactly is the scientific finding?? And how has it shaped *materialism* (however you want to define it) as such? The fact that materialists tend to believe proposition P does not imply that materialism, as such, has been shaped by proposition P. That is a non sequitur. (Compare: Catholics tend to believe in (some form of) evolution; therefore Catholic doctrine has been fundamentally shaped by evolutionary theory.) What is the crucial propositional content of *materialism* (which must be somehow opposed to *non*-materialism) which is fundamentally grounded in or shaped by F (where F is some scientific finding that must be somehow *contrary* to *non*-materialism)?DavidMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31912604774696179932013-04-02T11:21:12.152-07:002013-04-02T11:21:12.152-07:00Glenn wrote:
And a portion of Anonymous' state...Glenn wrote:<br /><i>And a portion of Anonymous' statement was idiomatic.</i><br /><br />Which one? Is it relevant to the debate we have been having? I haven't been pointing to word ambiguities to be pedantic--I genuinely don't see what the argument is supposed to be, beyond just pointing to adjectives like "qualitative", "holistic" etc. and acting as though it is a <i>given</i> that there is some contradiction between these adjectives and materialism. If that's all the argument amounts to, then it seems to me that Anonymous is failing to consider whether the common notion that materialism cannot be described by these adjectives is based on common usages of the terms which are different from the way Anonymous uses them (in particular, the same people who would say materialism is non "qualitative" or non "holistic" would mostly say the same about geometry, I think). If there's some other content to the argument beyond just an appeal to common notions that materialism is incompatible with certain adjectives, I can't find it, so if you think you have some insight please spell it out in detail instead of just criticizing my comments with one-liners.JesseMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993568347649474812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50305501561457483562013-04-02T10:14:04.380-07:002013-04-02T10:14:04.380-07:00JesseM,
Glenn wrote:
It's no more contradicto...JesseM,<br /><br /><i>Glenn wrote:<br />It's no more contradictory than referring to 'an ellipses'. <br /><br />Are you just trying to be snarky now by pointing out grammar mistakes? Yes, I should have written "ellipsis", I just misremembered the term for that series of dots.</i><br /><br />And a portion of Anonymous' statement was idiomatic.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40368425812172583742013-04-02T10:04:22.104-07:002013-04-02T10:04:22.104-07:00Of course materialism was shaped by science that i...Of course materialism was shaped by science that is why I will give an example that is obviously science being shaped by materialism LOL, wholy shit brilliant!Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63853182465260302322013-04-02T09:56:41.269-07:002013-04-02T09:56:41.269-07:00Materialism = atheism
Etymologically this makes n...Materialism = atheism<br /><br />Etymologically this makes no sense whatsoever hhahahahahaha, but that is okay materialism has no definition that seems to be it hahhahahaha.<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76704320311359011352013-04-02T09:19:02.700-07:002013-04-02T09:19:02.700-07:00Roughly, materialism == naturalism == atheism. Tha...Roughly, materialism == naturalism == atheism. That is, the salient part of "materialism" is not that little bits of stuff are the most fundamental thing in the universe, but that the universe is shaped by a lawful but unintelligent process; with no overarching intelligence guiding it. Physics is temporally and metaphysically prior to mind. Or, maybe it isn't. That is the fundamental disagreement, all the rest is noise.<br /><br />Of course materialism has been shaped by science. Darwin in particular was able to put biology, which had previously seemed to require an intelligent creator, on a materialist footing. Magic Fluid Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11163347109328094012013-04-02T07:55:34.422-07:002013-04-02T07:55:34.422-07:00DavidM wrote:
I would stop you right there: Is th...DavidM wrote:<br /><i> I would stop you right there: Is that true? Or just a popular myth? Has materialism really been shaped by real scientific findings? I highly doubt it. Could you give an example?</i><br /><br />The example is exactly the one we have been discussing about the behavior of "material" following uniform mathematical laws. I think finding the "best" definition of materialism is basically a sociological question, it involves looking at what ideas most people would consider to be defining features of that word (perhaps weighted towards those who actually consider themselves materialists, and people with more philosophical education). I think most modern materialists would believe nature obeys mathematical laws, and would also consider it a cheat to say something like "I believe in something like a Cartesian free-willed soul that interacts with the neurons of the brain and does not behave in any lawlike way, but I define this soul to still be a type of 'material' entity with a distinct spatial location, so I am still a materialist". But this is just based on my readings of, and interactions with, people who would consider themselves materialists or physicalists (as I said it seems to me the terms are used synonymously), I could be wrong about the beliefs of the typical materialists, one would have to conduct a poll or something to be sure. In any case, remember that Anonymous first mentioned "materialism" in response to Dr. Feser's quote <i>'modern science works with a conception of the “physical” that redefines it in entirely quantitative terms'</i>, so I think it's reasonable to focus the discussion on that subset of materialists who share the conceptions of "modern science" that Dr. Feser was talking about.<br /><br /><i>clarification of meaning sometimes requires that you reflect on those meanings, not just stipulate new definitions whenever it suits you</i><br /><br />Sure, that's why I keep going on about the definition of words that seem central to Anonymous' argument, like "quantitative" and "holistic". But I think the reflection needed is just about making sure there is a shared mutual understanding between the participants. As long as they are mutually clear, it's fine for them to stipulate meanings that don't necessarily precisely equate to common usage--often in philosophical discussions it's useful to adopt clear but narrow technical definitions, for example. I do in fact think that my use of "judgment" would match common usage--if you ask the average person whether computers make "judgments" I think the majority would say no--but even if I'm wrong, since I've spelled it out you can hopefully understand what I meant. "Evaluate" I just used as a shorthand for "determining an answer, whether consciousness is involved or not"--again I think this is a common usage, if you go to <a href="http://books.google.com" rel="nofollow">google books</a> and type the phrases "program evaluates" (or "computer evaluates" or "algorithm evaluates" or "software evaluates") in quotes, you get plenty of results from programming textbooks and such. (not nearly as many relevant hits with "program judges", "algorithm judges" etc.) But even if this is not the most common understanding of "evaluates", I've spelled out what I mean above so hopefully this term won't cause any further confusion, and of course if you understand what I meant conceptually you are free to translate the ideas I was discussing into your own preferred choice of words.JesseMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993568347649474812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25238963924832068892013-04-02T06:48:46.363-07:002013-04-02T06:48:46.363-07:00I've got an abacus, and a computer, and a son ...I've got an abacus, and a computer, and a son that can evaluate the sum of 3 and 2 - do you judge that all three of those evaluators are doing the same thing? How do you define 'evaluate'? You can't just always say "it depends on the definitions" - words have meanings ('meaningless word' is an oxymoron) and clarification of meaning sometimes requires that you reflect on those meanings, not just stipulate new definitions whenever it suits you.DavidMnoreply@blogger.com