tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post115239220785239259..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: EpiphenomenaRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152458226680100802006-07-09T11:17:00.000-04:002006-07-09T11:17:00.000-04:001. Even if I did, my point was your *a priori* co...1. Even if I did, my point was your *a priori* committment to materialism. I agree I hold jy faith at the presuppositional level, just making sure you knew you held yours at that level as well.<BR/><BR/>2. Yes, given the naturalist assumptions those laws are non-rational. You've heard them say that the *order* of the universe is evidence for the fine-tuning argument.<BR/><BR/>Technically, the term rationality can only be applied to beliefs and agents (or, cognizers). So, you're out of step with epistemology here.<BR/><BR/>And, even if I didn't think it a valid argument you can't defeat what I said by name dropping. I've noticed that this is the forte of many atheists. Be that as it may, I think the *order* of the universe does point to a God, but that argument makes sense given certain assumptions of mine, whereas you don't by it given your presuppositions. That's why I ask which worldview can account for caus, order, et al.<BR/><BR/>I do listen to the arguments for materialism (and, not all monists are materialists, e.g., substantival monists, Buddhists, etc.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm not going to debate you on dualism. I've seen Steve spin his wheels and get nowhere with you. You constantly ignore his arguments and repeat your already addressed arguments.<BR/><BR/>The point is, with respect to the argument from mind, is that you *must* explain the rational in terms of the non-rational. You never addressed this but showed your ignorance about the contingent laws of pnhysics and thought that somehow tied into necessary laws of reason, which must be in all possible worlds.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, since laws of logic are necessary (i.e., there is no possible world that, say, the law of non-contradiction woudl apply in since if you said it was *not* in the world then you would have just applied it in that world) and since the laws of physics and the existence of matter is not necessary (i.e., I am involved in no contradiction, self-refutation, etc., by positing a matterless world whereas you are when you posit a logicless world). Therefore, logic exists in all possible worlds, including matterless world, hence logic is not material.<BR/><BR/>Thus we see that you, as a materialit, must give an account for how your brain interacts with laws of logic (i.e., a material entity with an immaterial entity) and you must do this in the final scientific analysis by non-rational non-purposive answers.<BR/><BR/>Thus you use logic to infer other beliefs. The forse of the logical inference is the *cause* of your belief. But you must give a physical cause for why you believed the new belief. You must give explanations which adhere to the laws of physics, and those are none rational. No belief is rationaly inferred if it can be explained as the result of non-rational causes. If materialism is true then all beliefs are explained in terms of non-rational causes. Therefore if materialism is true then no belief is rationaly inferred. If any thesis entailes that no beliefs are rationally inferred then that thesis should be dropped. Ergo, materialism should be dropped.<BR/><BR/>So, giev evolutionary hypothesis, why assume that your beliefs are reliable? On yor view why are things they way they are with us? because they had survival value, that's why. And so as Pat Chruchland points out, all that matters is if your beliefs get you in the right place to survivie, "truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost."<BR/><BR/>I mean, what is the survival value of thinking in terms of modalities? What value did thinking in terms of necessitites have for our hunter-gatherer forefahters? None. On our view, being made in tghe image of God, the one who is necessary, knows necessary truths, wants us to know necessary truths, etc., this is unproblimatic. But for you, natural selection would favor thse traits, and the developement of our cognitive faculties, just as long as they helped us to survive, that's it!<BR/><BR/>Thus every time you saw a man-eating lion you could form the belief that it was a greek olympic runner and a marathon was about to start. So you turn and start running in the other direction. This belief, though false, allows you to survive. Likewise, a small animal who is skittish of everything would have survival value though the beliefs formed would mostly be false.<BR/><BR/>Thus what story can be given that, upon evolutionary assumptuions, we have good reason to trust our cognitive faculties as producing mostly true-beliefs? I've seen you give none but wave your hands a bunch.<BR/><BR/>Oh, as to your p.s. I read as well but I think of this like that moview Tombstone. Remember when Earp was in the salloon with Johhny Tyler? Tyler pointed out that Wyatt wasn't going heels (guns). No, we know Earp used his gun on other occasions but in this occasion Wyatt told Tyler, "I don't need to go heeled to get the buldge on a dub like you."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152444185024986132006-07-09T07:23:00.000-04:002006-07-09T07:23:00.000-04:00PS: No, Paul, I haven't studied this at all. Nev...PS: No, Paul, I haven't studied this at all. Never. Not once. <BR/><BR/>Gosh, you've studied an awful lot for a guy who just became a Christian six years ago. I wish I had your capabilities...nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152443723582734822006-07-09T07:15:00.000-04:002006-07-09T07:15:00.000-04:00Steve,That was all I was wondering -- is if phil o...Steve,<BR/><BR/>That was all I was wondering -- is if phil of mind contains within itself arguments convincing enough for you to admit that some persons will be moved towards materialism <B>by</B> those arguments, or if you think that pre-committed materialists develop arguments within the phil of mind to try to keep their worldview consistent.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you're right that there are some of both.<BR/><BR/>Surely you agree that atheism doesn't necessitate monism?<BR/><BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>I think it funny that you play pretend that your arguments are all your own. You have no "bodyguards", no, surely not. You're <B>so tough!</B> Why would you need help?<BR/><BR/>The laws of physics are non-rational? That's a new one to me. I've often heard theists argue that the rationality of the natural universe is evidence for God, ie the fine-tuning arguments, which depend upon the uniformity of nature (picking a specific range of cosmological constants, if they don't remain CONSTANT, is a bit idiotic, eh?).<BR/><BR/>Apparently you don't think this is a valid argument? Swinburne and Craig, in their reliance upon God setting up this universe to run rationally upon laws in order to make us [humans], need you as their bodyguard. <BR/><BR/>I am a monist due to simplicity and lack of studying the necessities of dualism. Basically, you have to start somewhere. You presuppose a soul/spirit, so of course you're never going to listen to the arguments about the logical impossibility of immaterial substances interacting with material ones. <BR/><BR/>I would say that starting out with materialism is just philosophically simpler than starting out as a dualist, esp so long as one allows the weight of evidence to determine whether or not dualism becomes more logical (as a first principle). One good reason for this is the obvious fact of existence and necessity of one substance. From there, additional substances ought to have supporting arguments. The best arguments for dualism I've run into come from phil of mind, but on the whole I am still unconvinced.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't mind being a property dualist, but at the moment, I remain in what I consider to be the simplest position until convinced by argument to the otherwise. Unlike you, Paul, I am not married to presuppositions. You have to have your soul, I don't mind having one either way.<BR/><BR/>Atheists need not be materialists. I have indeed tried to argue from a materialist standpoint, but I am not "bound" to it. Dualism doesn't necessitate a God, and certainly doesn't necessitate the Christian one, so that materialism isn't crucial, even if my whole aim were indeed to avoid your particular theology. Even if there existed some immaterial soul, one could take the Whiteheadian pantheism route, or one of many others...if one's aim were indeed to cling to materialism in order to escape the "unavoidable conclusion" [implied contention] that dualism = evidence for Christianity. It obviously doesn't.<BR/><BR/>..."it ain't all about you [your religion/God]," as they say.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152400354810637192006-07-08T19:12:00.000-04:002006-07-08T19:12:00.000-04:00note Daniel's a priori committment to materialism....note Daniel's a priori committment to materialism. He hasn't studied this but he knows your wrong, he'll just go to Denett to refute you. Dennett's playing the role of a highschool bodyguard.<BR/><BR/>Further, I'd like to introduce a technical distinction. The laws of physics may not be irrational, but they're like wise not rational, they are *non*- rational.<BR/><BR/>So, one still needs to build the bridge from the non-rational to the rational. If I can introduce my own a priori, I don't see it coming in our life time, though I know many people are commited to the project.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152398941271686432006-07-08T18:49:00.000-04:002006-07-08T18:49:00.000-04:00It’s hard to generalize. In the case of Dennett, h...It’s hard to generalize. In the case of Dennett, he studied under Gilbert Ryle, who was a militant critic of dualism, so it could well be that Dennett comes to materialism from philosophy of mind rather than vice versa.<BR/><BR/>As for others, a variety of prior intellectual commitments may be in play. They may begin with atheism, or empirical science, and frame a complementary philosophy of mind.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1152396518201893472006-07-08T18:08:00.000-04:002006-07-08T18:08:00.000-04:00Thank you for the insights to the differences betw...Thank you for the insights to the differences between a materialist and Cartesian dualist account of the mind. I have much to read on this subject. I know I can go to Dennett, or someone like him, to gain a summarized set of responses to your arguments, but I have to ask -- do you consider that they *start* with materialist assumptions and develop a phil of mind, or do you think that they develop a phil of mind, and *thus* are materialists?nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.com