(August 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Personally, if I had the job of choosing only a monism, I'd go with some kind of idealism. I already know that I can perceive objects with only my mind, in the form of dreams, and I can conceive of a great mind which also contains the rules of physics.
Ok.
(August 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: But you should stop saying monism. My position is that a PHYSICAL monism is incompatible with any sensible definition of mind, or of free will.
PHYSICAL monism. I'm starting to feel suspicious that you're trying to set me up with a strawman.
I'm simply choosing convenience over accuracy. Within the context of this argument, when I say monism, I mean physical monism. Feel free to quote me on this anytime you feel like I'm building a strawman.
(August 8, 2013 at 7:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Get real. There are thousands of models of the mind, and there may be as many definitions of will. This was originally your point, I believe.
I'm saying I believe I can reduce ALL physical monisms down to a simple test: I want you to produce ONE (1) example of a physical monism which both:
1) can prove that any physical system ACTUALLY experiences, as I do when I open my eyes in the morning
2) doesn't define mind in operational terms that beg the quesiton
If (1) fails, the theory is insufficient; if (2) fails, then nothing has been learned except that the redefiner wants to avoid the philosophical issues of dualism.
I believe all physical monist positions will fail both tests. But I'm not going to play the shell game where I refute one physical monist idea, and you say, "Yeah but what about the other 99, and others you don't know about, and that maybe haven't been invented yet?" Unless you have a model that passes my test, then none of the definitions used in those models is acceptable.
Yes, I got what you believe 5 posts ago. And what I'm saying is that if you took the time to actually read and understand even a few of the physical monist positions, you'd understand why your so called "simple test" is an egregious example of begging the question and why it is not applicable to any of the physical monist positions. The point of you studying the monist positions is not for you to refute each and everyone of them but to understand what you are arguing against and therefore why your current arguments are inapplicable.
The reason why your test itself is invalid is as follows:
Your first requirement is that the monist position should prove that any physical system actually experiences the way you do when you wake up in the morning. However, the basic premise of physical monism is that everything is a physical system - including you, me and the rest of the humanity. Which means, you yourself are the example of a physical system that experiences the way you do. Which is why this argument is
a non-starter. The only way to counter this argument is by the assumption that "you" are more than a physical system. Which is basically disagreeing with premise of physical monism, i.e. assuming that "not everything is a physical system" and using that assumption to "disprove" physical monism.
Similarly, your second criteria assumes that the dualist definition of mind or free-will is the "correct" definition and therefore, any operational definition of mind is equivalent to begging the question. But, this assumption is incorrect, which you'd realize if you actually took time to study the different views on the philosophy of mind. The most comprehensive and generic definitions of "mind" or "will" are philosophically neutral - they do not imply or favor a particular worldview such as dualism or monism. They are as applicable within monist context as they are within dualist one, though with quite different implications. However, the change in implications does not mean that the particular monist philosopher is redefining the word to avoid philosophical issues. And this is something you'd realize if you actually tried to understand how the word is used within different physicalist viewpoints.
