Philosophy (Part 2)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Agathon

Anyway, no evidence to the contrary of God's existence has been presented, but that doesn't mean I should believe in God.

I don't see you coming up with any answer to this in support of your claim about mental representations.

Later

[KrazyHorse]

And you are just a man who's operating with an antiquated 17th and 18th century conception of mental states.

Because scientific philosophy (understanding the Universe raher than ethical philosophy etc.) hasn't moved in 2500 years, unlike physics, mathematics, chemistry...

The views of 2500 years ago are demonstrably at odds with sensory information, whereas the Platonic ideal forms BS is just as valid as anything I've seen you say so far. And that's the difference.

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe physicists are just stupid or perhaps they need to take more philosophy of mind courses to stop them talking about entities which have the scientific respectablility of fairies. Talk to people who work on the brain or in cognitive science or psychologists and you might find a different story (not necessarily all in agreement with me, but agreement that this is an open question). Look, behaviourists disputed the existence of such states precisely because they weren't observable - so mine is not a weird or totally unheard of position.

?

This is an awful argument. It does nothing to demonstrate that philosophy has an effect on the sciences; all you've done so far is to tell me that philosophers mold their theories to be more in line with what the scientists are discovering. Whch tells me yet again that philosophers try to learn "about" other subjects instead of learning to actually deal with them or to contribute something.

You've made up arguments that don't even look like a proof. In each of your posts you've made multiple assertions unbacked by proof in order to further your position. And the debate looks a lot more like one about politics or religion than it does a scientific or mathematical discussion. Which just goes to prove my point.

I've dealt with solid, logical proofs for years, and nothing you've said to demonstrate the "debunking" of Cartesianism has even come close to resembling one.

Nor, I'm sure does there exist a counterproof to any "theory" with even a modicum of self-consistency. You object to my telling you to accept the scientific method without proof but you want me to accept the real world without proof. None of this stuff can be demonstrated to a skeptical mind. Not even the mind's own perceived activities in the past can be relied on. But such a claim is out of fashion because it was an obvious trap (of course). And so is any other debate about the "great issues" of philosophy. Maybe in a thousand years you'll accept that too, then claim that you're dragging the rest of the world with you instead of vice versa.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

And you are just a man who's operating with an antiquated 17th and 18th century conception of mental states.

Because scientific philosophy (understanding the Universe raher than ethical philosophy etc.) hasn't moved in 2500 years, unlike physics, mathematics, chemistry...

The views of 2500 years ago are demonstrably at odds with sensory information, whereas the Platonic ideal forms BS is just as valid as anything I've seen you say so far. And that's the difference.

Wow, I didn't realise that eliminative materialism in its present form was 2500 years old or that it was demonstrably at odds with observation.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

This is an awful argument.... :

Oh blah blah blah.

Stop trying to avoid the questions. Here they are again:

1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities? I can't detect them, they are not scientifically respectable and I can't see how they solve anything. At least Descartes has an argument (although it's not a very good one) for them. You don't appear to.

2) Why should I be a sceptic? Observing that there is a computer in front of me seems to me to be reasonable evidence for saying there is one and I don't think I need to hypostasise magical mental entities to account for error, or admit global scepticism.

So far, you have meticulously avoided giving a non-question begging answer to these questions. The best you've said to the first is that you have seen no evidence to the contrary - and that's just a silly claim. Are you going to continue to do this, or shall we just stop now?

Nothing you have offered is any better than the worst sort of dogmatism or accusations that philosophers are still doing the same thing Plato was (they aren't: things have changed; radically in fact). I'm quite prepared to accept that philosophy as it's been traditionally understood has no place in science or has no place in grounding scientific method, but I need reasons before I'll do it. I think that getting rid of Cartesianism would be a good start, which is why I find your insistence on Cartesianism so objectionable.

And I notice that you didn't bother responding to the account of mental representation that I so kindly offered. Which by the way was not offered as a thorough debunking of Cartesianism, but as an account of why the theory creates more problems than it solves.

For the record: if there is any foundation for science, upon which the latter is built like a house upon foundations, then it seems to me that we are better off with our ordinary common sense understanding of human beings as persons rather than some hypostasised mental entities that create more problems than they solve. Then again, I'm not sure that foundationalism is a coherent thesis, but I'd need good reasons to dispense with it.

[Buck Birdseed]

Could someone summarise exactly what it is you're arguing about? I tried to skim these threads and the entire thing seems to be (a) about the usefulness of philosophy, which should be obvious even to the thickest of common-sense idiots, (b) about the usefulness of science, which I personally would not contest but many people would and very persuasively (I hate bloody science relativists, but they're damn hard to argue againts), and (c) the knowledge about the world generated by the cartesian world view which KittyHorse seems to argue is the same one as the one science holds, which I'd disagree with completely.

Have I missed anything essential? I can't be arsed reading through the entire thread.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher, Frogger, CyberGnu: Philosophy is useless

Imran and Agathon: no it's not

[KrazyHorse]

Snappie, do you get off spouting contrarian crap?

Philosophy is incontestably useful, while science is not?

Hah...

[Asher]

Snapcase is a music critic. His opinion on philosophy and science is invaluable.

[KrazyHorse]

I think that post is along the lines of his "Classical music is full of sh*t" threads...

[KrazyHorse]

And I notice that you didn't bother responding to the account of mental representation that I so kindly offered. Which by the way was not offered as a thorough debunking of Cartesianism, but as an account of why the theory creates more problems than it solves.

That's because your "analysis" was so full of sh*t that there's hardly even a starting point.

You BAMed the entire process and then asked why I didn't respond. And to boot you did it using terms whose definition is apparently only known to you.

[Giant_Squid]

Agathon, wouldn't the most obvious proof for Cartesian mental entities be that people are conscious? There's nothing in regular science that can even conceivably begin to explain that, so far as I know - science has four forces that act upon stuff and make it move, which can explain a surprising amount of stuff, but it seems to just be obviously impossible for it to result in a conscious being (note I do not say a thinking being - I'm sure a decent computer could eventually simulate thought). Consciousness isn't just something that can be explained away by emergent properties, and I'm curious how anything except dualism can do it.

[I skimmed this thread, so if I missed an answer to this question already if you could point it out to me in a nonrude manner I would be eternally grateful]

[KrazyHorse]

I already mentioned that.

But he seems to follow the Philosopher's Credo: don't let logic get in the way of a good argument.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

That's because your "analysis" was so full of sh*t that there's hardly even a starting point.

Sounds like avoiding the argument to me. It's not my analysis, it's pretty common knowledge in my business, although of course you think that is worthless, even though you don't have any reasons as to why. And this from the man who refuses to answer two simple questions that are put to him. I could give reasonable answers to both of them so I don't see why you can't.

You BAMed the entire process and then asked why I didn't respond. And to boot you did it using terms whose definition is apparently only known to you.

Rubbish. The real fact is that you are incompetent when it comes to answering simple questions that are put to you. Here they are again in case you missed them:

1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities? I can't detect them, they are not scientifically respectable and I can't see how they solve anything. At least Descartes has an argument (although it's not a very good one) for them. You don't appear to.

2) Why should I be a sceptic? Observing that there is a computer in front of me seems to me to be reasonable evidence for saying there is one and I don't think I need to hypostasise magical mental entities to account for error, or admit global scepticism.

I'll add a third:

3) Can you provide compelling reasons why the foregoing two questions cannot be answered but we should believe anyway.

Come on Mr Big-I'm-so-clever-Theoretical-Physicist answer the bloody questions or stop wasting my time.

[Asher]

Agathon, please, we have enough evidence of why philosophy is useless in the university -- you don't need to keep posting!