tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8830816911589296422..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Nagel and his critics, Part VIIEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36681112690459045442015-03-27T09:31:46.315-07:002015-03-27T09:31:46.315-07:00Dr. Feser, your profound and articulate defense of...Dr. Feser, your profound and articulate defense of Thomas Nagel's book <i>'Mind and Cosmos'</i> is recommended by me on my blog: www. bioperipatetic.com specifically on this page: http://bioperipatetic.com/consciousness-and-causality/ I would love to share more of you wisdom on my blog (always providing a link to your original text, of course). Warm regards, Jack Schwartz aka bioperipatetic. Jack H. Schwartzhttp://www.bioperipatetic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7509307680796315432013-04-26T14:03:13.619-07:002013-04-26T14:03:13.619-07:00Nagel points to a extensive set of bibliographic a...Nagel points to a extensive set of bibliographic annotations. The content of the referenced books are, I have found, essential to understanding his extensive thesis, summarized in his brilliant monograph <i>Mind & Cosmos</i>. Some others in this comment thread have mentioned the importance of A. N. Whitehead's process-focused view of nature, which views matter as emergent rather than foundational. I have read several books pointing to Whitehead's ideas as seminal in this regard. First is the deeply reasoned book <i>The Nature of Physical Existence</i> by Ivor Leclerk, who begins with Aristotle, moves through Cusanus and ends with Whitehead. A very valuable read, though I do not see that it leads to anything final, but to the need for more and deeper thinking about metaphysical issues. A second book, <i>Scientific Nihilism: On the Loss and Recovery of Physical Explanation</i> by Daniel Athearn, also ends with an argument based on Whithead's process model of Nature. I found it very valuable in revealing the sad state of 'explanation' in modern physics, but it left me unsatisfied and instead hungry for more reading. A third book, <i>A different Universe" Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Up</i> by Robert B. Laughliin, a Nobel Prize winner in quantum physics, was extremely helpful in explaining the problems of materialist reductionism in modern physics, and the general failure by most scientist to 'get' that virtually all general scientific laws are 'emergent' and not 'reductionist'. <br />Bioperipatetichttp://bioperipatetic.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1482500455470806142013-03-28T22:25:01.302-07:002013-03-28T22:25:01.302-07:00Rank,
let me further add the following from St.Th...Rank,<br /><br />let me further add the following from St.Thomas himself, at ST,I. 75.1: <br /><br />"Objection 3. Further, between the mover and the moved there must be contact. But contact is only between bodies. Since, therefore, the soul moves the body, it seems that the soul must be a body. <br /><br />Reply to Objection 3. There are two kinds of contact; of "quantity," and of "power." By the former a body can be touched only by a body; by the latter a body can be touched by an incorporeal thing, which moves that body."ddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46762025394728578272013-03-23T17:14:08.008-07:002013-03-23T17:14:08.008-07:00Rank Sophist: Honestly, the Thomistic idea of the ...Rank Sophist: <i>Honestly, the Thomistic idea of the mind leans toward monism more than it does dualism, even though it's ultimately neither. I do agree with Freddoso that calling it dualism can lead to newcomers having conceptual difficulties. (Not that similar issues wouldn't occur if you called it monism.)</i><br /><br />I submit that we start calling it "hylomorphic sesquialism"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86445691101218135642013-03-23T14:19:55.285-07:002013-03-23T14:19:55.285-07:00@Vincent, Eduardo et al,
Thanks for the informativ...@Vincent, Eduardo et al,<br />Thanks for the informative post and links. The issue, V, of how a 'libertarian' will might be able to 'freely' decide, & whether, E, the human mind can indeed 'create' an original thought - worth examination. I'm still puzzling, V, over your example of two chains of random digits with a macroscopic constraint overlay. Gone for next few days (reclusive trip to Death Valley while the rest of the country is still cold), but will study all these ideas. Thanks.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43104027120892953122013-03-23T11:06:38.753-07:002013-03-23T11:06:38.753-07:00Rank,
well it may be strange, but it certainly is...Rank,<br /><br />well it may be strange, but it certainly isn't incoherent. the details of Descartes account of the relation between the two i would agree is false. but the basic point i.e., that an immaterial substance can affect and interact with a material one, remains valid. unless there's a demonstration to the contrary, there's nothing problematic about it. <br /><br />ddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62302075955991341382013-03-23T10:51:48.489-07:002013-03-23T10:51:48.489-07:00Alan,
Glenn: ‘Don’t give up’ was a general admoni...Alan,<br /><br /><i>Glenn: ‘Don’t give up’ was a general admonition, I’ve no issue with moving on to lines of inquiry with better prospects. Mind from brain, however, is far too tantalizing to move away from for long, let’s see where we are in fifty years. Tricksters will always be among us – we can hope for their early exposure.</i><br /><br />The ability to reason nonmonotonically is a part of being intelligent. And there is no guaranty that something discovered or added in the next fifty years, or even the rediscovery (or finding out) of something(s) already known, won't rationally require a recanting of previously adhered to conclusions. I say this not to stifle enthusiasm or optimism, but to temper them in the interest of being realistic regarding the difference between conjecture and fact.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91640090344466310522013-03-23T08:56:24.566-07:002013-03-23T08:56:24.566-07:00Wait, is anon talking about a change in personalit...Wait, is anon talking about a change in personality? If so, then it just seems like the tired old brain damage/brain alteration argument.BLSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76162007947933777262013-03-23T07:36:37.064-07:002013-03-23T07:36:37.064-07:00Anonymous (who else?!?): Any other description is ...Anonymous (who else?!?): <i>Any other description is simply an appeal to magic at some level.</i><br /><br />Aw, c'mon, blatantly faking a post to try to prove <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/03/ferguson-on-nagel.html?showComment=1363829096718#c6377822402961739181" rel="nofollow">Green's Law</a> is just cheating!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50329670173372324602013-03-23T07:28:04.667-07:002013-03-23T07:28:04.667-07:00dd,
I didn't mean that something immaterial c...dd,<br /><br />I didn't mean that something immaterial couldn't efficiently cause (i.e. create) something material--just that the interaction between the two was incoherent. I hadn't actually read Aquinas's treatment of the subject when I said that, so I take a bit of it back. However, the interaction between the material and immaterial is quite strange, and it clearly doesn't work in the way that Descartes needed it to. You can see something about it here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1051.htm#article3.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42181295778240525222013-03-23T07:07:12.635-07:002013-03-23T07:07:12.635-07:00Hi cemerson, Scott and rank sophist,
Re the inter...Hi cemerson, Scott and rank sophist,<br /><br />Re the interaction problem, I wrote these papers a couple of years ago:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-i-think-the-interaction-problem-is-real/" rel="nofollow">Why I think the interaction problem is real</a> and <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-is-libertarian-free-will-possible/" rel="nofollow">How is libertarian free will possible?</a><br /><br />Re monism vs. dualism:<br />I think the Thomistic position can best be described as agency dualism, as opposed to mere property dualism on the one hand and Cartesian substance dualism on the other. What it says is that a human being is one entity, but with two kinds of operations. Some human acts are bodily acts (e.g. sensing, imagining, feeling), while others are non-bodily acts (thinking and choosing). Man is an animal - and in particular a rational animal. Our rational acts are also animal acts. However, not every act of an animal is necessarily a bodily act.<br /><br />There's a good paper on this subject by Fr. John O'Callaghan, entitled, <a href="http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/ti00/ocallagh.htm" rel="nofollow">From Augustine's Mind to Aquinas' Soul</a>.<br /><br />Here's a question about qualia that I've been turning over in my head for some time, and I'd like to hear what people think. Does Frank Jackson's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument" rel="nofollow">knowledge argument</a> rule out an impassible God? Putting it another way, if God could see yellow, would He be surprised, as Mary the blind super-scientist would? And if not, why not?Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47972809841774680262013-03-23T01:51:01.842-07:002013-03-23T01:51:01.842-07:00"you" can be changed by physical and che..."you" can be changed by physical and chemical events. <br /><br />* I suppose this is true, given that there is a I, that causal relations that I believe are true are actually true.<br /><br />The change can be so great you cease to exist.<br /><br />* right.... I guess you are pressuposing no life after death of this phenomena called I... Even so, I don't see the thrust in this part.<br /><br />You are defined solely by the physical.<br /><br />* well that is just a petition of principle, you are simply saying, that the physical as you have defined in your head accounts for a phenomena that humans call I. But these kind of claims are really hard to be certain, if you don't know all the dimensions of a subiect you can't guarantee in any way what can be excluded from that subject...<br /><br />Therefore conscious is physical.<br /><br />* I can safely say that, all you got is a possibility, and a very crude philosophical position, and this shit here, I can be certain of.<br /><br />The last phrase is just your personal Belief.. Thanks for sharing.... But really I don't care about it.<br /><br />------------------------<br /><br />Anon I wrote hundreds of words while brain storming about the subject, all these seem very complex and fun subjects to deal with, but I think it is sort of obvious that all you got is personal opinions and no arguments, or personal attacks and mockery....Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16721330220875693492013-03-23T01:10:36.739-07:002013-03-23T01:10:36.739-07:00Eduardo, consciousness is solely physical because ...Eduardo, consciousness is solely physical because via physical or chemical means, how you are can be changed. In fact, who you are can be changed to such a degree that who you were simply ceases to exist.<br /><br />There is nothing but the physical that anchors and defines the you.<br /><br />That is why I can confidently assert that the mind is solely the result of physical material processes.<br /><br />Any other description is simply an appeal to magic at some level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31927764538365893542013-03-22T23:24:25.065-07:002013-03-22T23:24:25.065-07:00Rank,
what is your argument that something immate...Rank,<br /><br />what is your argument that something immaterial cannot be an efficient cause of something material?ddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12942695528202626992013-03-22T21:18:14.849-07:002013-03-22T21:18:14.849-07:00Eduardo: Interesting point you gave there Rank, wh...Eduardo: <i>Interesting point you gave there Rank, why something immaterial can't be something's material efficient cause?</i><br /><br />Well, something immaterial <i>can</i> be an efficient cause, actually — for example, angels can act on physical objects. So there's nothing impossible about that kind of Cartesianesque dualism <i>per se</i>. It's just impossible for it to explain a human being (an angel acting on a body isn't <i>a</i> anything; it's two things).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14493429932881563532013-03-22T20:48:36.481-07:002013-03-22T20:48:36.481-07:00Eduardo,
I recommend this post by Prof. Feser: ht...Eduardo,<br /><br />I recommend this post by Prof. Feser: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/10/interaction-problem.html.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12511303657170533942013-03-22T20:33:00.162-07:002013-03-22T20:33:00.162-07:00Interesting point you gave there Rank, why somethi...Interesting point you gave there Rank, why something immaterial can't be something's material efficient cause?Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75821551075242807192013-03-22T19:20:17.844-07:002013-03-22T19:20:17.844-07:00Thanks to all. Helpful links and helpful explanati...Thanks to all. Helpful links and helpful explanation. c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82262289350644975882013-03-22T18:46:30.170-07:002013-03-22T18:46:30.170-07:00What I haven't yet seen in the ComBox, and hop...<i>What I haven't yet seen in the ComBox, and hope to see, is a brief description of the A-T theory of matter-form and a summary of how that resolves or differs from other mind-brain philosophies. Any Thomists available who want to address that? Thanks in advance.</i><br /><br />Mind-brain problems in other philosophies derive from the idea that the mind is A) the efficient cause of bodily activity and B) a separate substance. How, exactly, is an immaterial substance supposed to interact with a material one as its efficient cause? It's just nonsense. Thomists deny that there is any "immaterial substance" that controls the body. The only substances are form/matter hybrids, and in this respect humans are no different than animals or rocks. The difference is that a human form manifests powers that are not totally reliant on matter: the mental powers of reason. But it must be absolutely clear that the mind is not the form of the body. It's only a power that the human form happens to manifest. This is the reason that it's unified with the body--it's just one of many traits brought out by the form, alongside material traits like sensation. There is no interaction problem, because material and immaterial human traits both originate from the form, which unifies them with each other and with the body.<br /><br />Honestly, the Thomistic idea of the mind leans toward monism more than it does dualism, even though it's ultimately neither. I do agree with Freddoso that calling it dualism can lead to newcomers having conceptual difficulties. (Not that similar issues wouldn't occur if you called it monism.)rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13586718937394225272013-03-22T17:31:42.229-07:002013-03-22T17:31:42.229-07:00@c emerson:
BLS wrote, "I also think that Od...@c emerson:<br /><br />BLS wrote, "I also think that Oderberg has a paper on hylemorphic dualism, I'll see if I can find it."<br /><br />He does, and it's <a href="http://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60737165814068876342013-03-22T15:48:08.389-07:002013-03-22T15:48:08.389-07:00emerson,
In Feser's mind-body roundup, check ...emerson,<br /><br />In Feser's mind-body roundup, check out the posts under<br /><br />"Defenses of Thomistic or hylemorphic dualism (which I endorse) can be found in the following posts"<br /><br />I also think that Oderberg has a paper on hylemorphic dualism, I'll see if I can find it. Since I'm not an expert, the best I can do is direct you to links. Maybe someone else can give you the basics here.BLSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69031236742867215792013-03-22T15:39:26.148-07:002013-03-22T15:39:26.148-07:00What I haven't yet seen in the ComBox, and hop...What I haven't yet seen in the ComBox, and hope to see, is a brief description of the A-T theory of matter-form and a summary of how that resolves or differs from other mind-brain philosophies. Any Thomists available who want to address that? Thanks in advance.c emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04148726859110510447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78253958305261476582013-03-22T15:17:33.976-07:002013-03-22T15:17:33.976-07:00Anonymous: if you are going to argue against Desca...Anonymous: <i>if you are going to argue against Descartes, you should at least adopt a non-vacuous objection, like the interaction problem.</i><br /><br />Yes, those other "objections" completely miss the point. But so does the so-called "interaction problem": just try to explain what's so problematic without defining "action" as "physical action".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82347608146074598512013-03-22T14:58:23.864-07:002013-03-22T14:58:23.864-07:00@BLS:
"And the anony-storm continues.
I hav...@BLS:<br /><br />"And the anony-storm continues.<br /><br />I have seen some blogs using this program (blogger) that have no anonymous posting option, instead you need something like a google account, or some other type of commenting account (OpenID)."<br /><br />Indeed. And even though it isn't required here, it would be much easier to keep everyone straight if all the anonymous posters would be considerate enough to avail themselves of the Name/URL option. I don't know what's so hard about clicking a radio button and typing a name.Scott, using the Name/URL optionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46070578447278108272013-03-22T14:45:46.538-07:002013-03-22T14:45:46.538-07:00Glenn: ‘Don’t give up’ was a general admonition, ...Glenn: ‘Don’t give up’ was a general admonition, I’ve no issue with moving on to lines of inquiry with better prospects. Mind from brain, however, is far too tantalizing to move away from for long, let’s see where we are in fifty years. Tricksters will always be among us – we can hope for their early exposure.Alannoreply@blogger.com