RE: Why materialists are predominantly materialists
September 19, 2016 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2016 at 2:53 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Parsimony is fine if it accounts for all the relevant phenomena. You seem to be discounting the most important phenomena, namely intentionality. You cannot assign meaning to brain states without tacitly accepting the reverse, i.e. assigning brain states to meaning.
Not all alternative theories propose "fantastic entities of which we have no experience." For me the lack of a mechanism is not a problem because I do not have a mechanistic outlook; but rather a participatory one. Triangular objects do not need a mechanism to participate in the idea of triangularity and triangularity does not need to exist as an independent entity before objects can manifest as triangles.
Not all alternative theories propose "fantastic entities of which we have no experience." For me the lack of a mechanism is not a problem because I do not have a mechanistic outlook; but rather a participatory one. Triangular objects do not need a mechanism to participate in the idea of triangularity and triangularity does not need to exist as an independent entity before objects can manifest as triangles.
