LostLocke Wrote:That's true.
If immaterial things do even exist, we can't test them directly.

But the other thing is that if we are to ever perceive them they have to interact with our known material universe to do so.

Let's just say for example, there is a guy standing right next to you but he exists in a 4th dimension of space.
You would have no way of directly perceiving him since you can't see in that dimension or "direction", even though he's right there.
They only way to have an indirect perception of him is if in some way or another he interacts with material in our dimension, which then can be measured and quantified. (Of course the problem with that is how do you determine it was an immaterial person, and not some as of yet unknown material cause?)

And of course the flip side is that if he never interacts with material in our dimensions, his very existence becomes irrelevant, since him not interacting with our material or him not existing are essentially the same thing relative to us.

I agree with everything here.

(April 6, 2013 at 1:20 pm)Tex Wrote: The other big one (which doesn't apply to all) is a presupposition called "empiricism". This metaphysical principle states that the only things that exist are material. Most of you here practice this. However, the principle "only material things exist" cannot actually be tested under the scientific method. When tried, you're only using material senses (be it the tester or an artificial measure) and therefore can never account for anything immaterial.

I don't think anyone here believes that. Most of us here are progressive enough to believe in electricity, gravity and values whether they are material or not.

With empricism, electricity, ideas, gravitational force, all of that is labeled "material". There might not be matter in a photon, but they are material.

And doesn't matter=energy anyway? E=mc^2

E=mc^2 serves as our current conception of matter at a certain scale. The folk understanding of matter revolves around the idea of solidity. As we know, what appears to be solid at the everyday level of reality is mostly empty space between atoms. This seems to be the case at even smaller scales. Even quarks dissolve into "structured nothingness." Why should be assume that the smallest scale of our current physical model is indeed the smallest scale?

So what exactly is my point? If we are going to talk about material things we must do so on the understanding that 'matter', for the purpose of this discussion, refers to all things modeled by classical physics. The reason I do not go all the way down to quantum physics is this. Physical theories of mind (Pennrose being the outlier) assume that all significant mental functions happen in the brain using classical physics operations,i.e. electro-chemical reactions. That's why Ryan wants you to show him your organ. =-) His imagination is limited to classical physics.

From a metaphysical point of view, we have no such limitations and can posit the existence of a Primal Matter, that serves as pure substance capable of supporting Ideal Forms.

(April 7, 2013 at 10:22 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Physical theories of mind (Pennrose being the outlier) assume that all significant mental functions happen in the brain using classical physics operations,i.e. electro-chemical reactions. That's why Ryan wants you to show him your organ. =-) His imagination is limited to classical physics.

From a metaphysical point of view, we have no such limitations and can posit the existence of a Primal Matter, that serves as pure substance capable of supporting Ideal Forms.

What I wonder is why you think the meat in our craniums is unable to generate each and every subjective state, logical ideal or imagined pure substance you like? It is funny how Tex uses his noggin to argue for the limitations of the meat inside that noggin. Lacking any clear idea of how the brain creates subjective states -many of which are recognizable in our pets at home- how can you draw a line between what the brain enables and what must come from some mysterious other realm.

Since you seem to support him in this venture perhaps you can tell me why this project is so important to you. What really have you lost if it turns out the brain in fact does support all of our subjective experience? I don't see why you need metaphysical correlates of bodily organs in order to think what you will about religious matters. There is no proof either for or against gods so why are such apologetics needed to support faith. I've always thought faith was something that didn't depend on rationalization.

(April 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm)whateverist Wrote: I've always thought faith was something that didn't depend on rationalization.

It's the weak in faith like me that go seeking evidence in rationalization. You are right, faith doesn't need it. And most believers out there have faith both in God and their particular version of that God, without seeking rational justification.

(April 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm)whateverist Wrote: Since you seem to support him in this venture perhaps you can tell me why this project is so important to you. What really have you lost if it turns out the brain in fact does support all of our subjective experience.

Your last question first. I find the mind/body problem interesting. That's all. Even as an atheist I puzzled over the curious interaction between mind and body. Puzzling over this particular area of philosophy gives me much intellectual pleasure apart from any practical application. I do not find the topic in itself useful as an apologetic. Nevertheless I do attribute much of my return to faith to a deep intuition that physical reduction does not adequately explain our inner life.

(April 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm)whateverist Wrote: What I wonder is why you think the meat in our craniums is unable to generate each and every subjective state, logical ideal or imagined pure substance you like?

Many reasons.

The first reason, is called over-determination. We do not attribute mental states to other physical systems although we find it easy to assign functional properties. From a purely physical point of view, it seems the brain could just as easily perform its functions without the need for any associated subjective experiences. Subjective experiences seem useless, i.e. causally impotent. So why are they there at all? And why do they seem so closely matched to brain organization if they have no purpose?

The second reason concerns the curious fact that each neuron seems remarkably identical to another. Yet stimulation of various sets of neurons produce wildly different kinds of sensations or govern involuntary and voluntary movements of the body with or without sensation. I find this property of brain tissue very counter-intuitive from a purely physical point of view.

The third reason is this. I think meaning, or 'aboutness', is an essential part of reality and not an odd by-product animal life. We have become highly effective at identifying particulars within the seamless continuum of the physical reality. It seems to me that pattern recognition requires pre-existing patterns. No all patterns need to fall into this category, many would be composite forms.

(April 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I find the mind/body problem interesting. That's all. Even as an atheist I puzzled over the curious interaction between mind and body.

I find this fascinating as well and would continue to do so whatever may be discovered about how minds are generated.

(April 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I do not find the topic in itself useful as an apologetic.

Nor do I, but it seems our friend Tex would use it that way.

(April 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Nevertheless I do attribute much of my return to faith to a deep intuition that physical reduction does not adequately explain our inner life.

Funny, I too have a lot of faith in processes I can't justify. But it bothers me not at all that they may be dependent on the meat in my cranium as their source. However they may be generated, I would continue to value my creative process, my appreciation of beauty and meaning, and my nose for the truth. None of them come with a pedigree but I esteem them highly and do my best to serve them.

(April 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm)whateverist Wrote: What I wonder is why you think the meat in our craniums is unable to generate each and every subjective state, logical ideal or imagined pure substance you like?

Many reasons.

The first reason, is called over-determination. We do not attribute mental states to other physical systems although we find it easy to assign functional properties. From a purely physical point of view, it seems the brain could just as easily perform its functions without the need for any associated subjective experiences. Subjective experiences seem useless, i.e. causally impotent. So why are they there at all? And why do they seem so closely matched to brain organization if they have no purpose?

Funny, I find the question of why we have subjective experiences at all the most puzzling. Surely we had them before we ever had capacity for symbolic language. Like so many other creatures we would feel a tug or repulsion toward certain stimuli. But I don't think this would be a purely binary reaction of approval or disapproval, rather each would be imbued with associations. I think the quality of these experiences still exist in us today as our feeling and intuition. We still recognize significance without the benefit of discursive thought. What we don't have without discursive thought is philosophy and the recognition of real or imagined contradictions in our symbolic semantics.

(April 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The third reason is this. I think meaning, or 'aboutness', is an essential part of reality and not an odd by-product animal life. We have become highly effective at identifying particulars within the seamless continuum of the physical reality.

Hmm I sort of agree. Of course 'aboutness' is an essential part of reality but that is precisely because animal nature is an essential part of reality too. It isn't an odd by-product, it is rather a sensory-cognitive adaption on the part of life to reality. We didn't 'make it up'. We evolved with and in relation to the rest of reality. Animal life needn't be seen as something senseless and base, it does after all include us and our highest achievements including science and religion.

whateverist Wrote:...how can you draw a line between what the brain enables and what must come from some mysterious other realm.

You can examine the brain. It is physical and processes the stimuli it's given. If there is something that "comes from some mysterious other realm", then it doesn't go through the brain. It would have to go through "some other mysterious part", so if we were going to be empiricists, nothing comes from a mysterious other realm.

whateverist Wrote:Nor do I, but it seems our friend Tex would use it that way.

He said... he called me a friend... I LOVE YOU TOO!!!

(April 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Tex Wrote:

whateverist Wrote:Nor do I, but it seems our friend Tex would use it that way.

He said... he called me a friend... I LOVE YOU TOO!!!

Hey, take it easy. I'm not ready to go steady or anything like that. Oh, for Christ's sake don't hump my leg!



But on a more serious note, do you think you need for there to be an other-worldly specialness about our subjective experience in order to justify your faith in souls, the bible, god etc.? If so I think you are wasting your time. Try to take breaks from discursive thought. It leads to massive confusion if you're not careful and frankly it just isn't all that healthy in large doses.