Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 7:04 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   My problem with evolution
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 120 (23494)
11-21-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by robinrohan
11-21-2002 9:47 AM


If you look in the encyclopedia, John, you will notice that Kant's philosophy is called "transcendental idealism." It's just another form of idealism.

[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2002 9:47 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 120 (23500)
11-21-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by obsidian
11-21-2002 10:46 AM


You are right, Obsidian. There is no monitor in the brain. It is purely a receiver and storer. Nonetheless we do have an inner monitor. It's the mind. Which means that there's a difference between the mind and the brain even though the mind can not exist without the brain (presumably.)

Those images we form when we imagine are purely mental. They exist in time but not in space. The pattern of electrical impulses in the cortex produces them, but they are not identical to them--in the same way that digitized photo information is not identical to the picture on the monitor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by obsidian, posted 11-21-2002 10:46 AM obsidian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Quetzal, posted 11-22-2002 10:24 AM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 120 (23516)
11-21-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John
11-21-2002 12:56 PM


Ok, how about this:

I. Idealism
1a. Plato
1b. Kant
1c. Hinduism

II Dualism
2a. Descartes
2b. Christianity
2c. Islam

III Materialism
3a. Obsidian
3b. Quextal
3c. Bertrand Russell

[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John, posted 11-21-2002 12:56 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John, posted 11-21-2002 2:57 PM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 120 (23524)
11-21-2002 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John
11-21-2002 2:57 PM


Platonic forms are ideas in the mind of God. Mental or spiritual, whatever you prefer. These forms are not constructs but "essences." They are eternal and immutable. That's all I know about it.

I ignored Hume because Hume had no metaphysical philosophy. Hume studied epistemology, not metaphysics.

Kant
phenomena--mental; noumena--God knows what.

You said that the word "atom" has different meanings for Ancient Greeks and moderns. No doubt. But not totally different. That's why we moderns took the name. They are little bitty something-or-others that make up the world of matter. Both Greeks and moderns believe that.

I like lumping and you like splitting. Both are necessary.

[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John, posted 11-21-2002 2:57 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by John, posted 11-21-2002 10:25 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 78 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 10:41 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 120 (23533)
11-21-2002 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by TechnoCore
11-20-2002 9:00 PM


I know exactly what you are talking about in regard to thinking in images. There's a sort of proto-thought that begins to emerge that is a vague area of possibilities until a name is atteched to it. More like a pregnant feeling than a thought. But we never really know what we think until we see what we say.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by TechnoCore, posted 11-20-2002 9:00 PM TechnoCore has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 120 (23629)
11-22-2002 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by John
11-21-2002 10:25 PM


John, "God knows what" is nothing at all. It just means that we don't know what it is. You could hardly call that an "alternative."

I think what this is all about is that you just hate pinning something down and having something to say--you want the possibility of that other no-name reality being out there somewhere possibly. Fine. Maybe there is something out there beyond these possibilites that we don't know anything about. But so what? We have to go on what we know now. And all we know is that the traditional metaphysical philosophies can be boiled down to 3. If you want to add a forth and call that "God knows what," go ahead. Are there differences in detail between the various idealistic philosophers?--of course there are. I wasn't talking about details--I was talking about what they had in common. Here's something that all idealists have in common--they think that the physical world is--in some sense or other--an illusion. Kant calls it "phenomena"; Plato called it an imperfect copy of the ideal; the Hindus call it "maya" (a veil). Surely you can see that all these philosophies have something in common, and that's why they are all idealists.

[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John, posted 11-21-2002 10:25 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by John, posted 11-22-2002 12:56 AM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 120 (23640)
11-22-2002 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by John
11-22-2002 12:56 AM


John, how all this started was that I very innocently (I thought) named the 3 traditional metaphysical beliefs (it's not like I made this up), and you jumped on me like I had committed a sin against the holy ghost of Hume. And then you started telling me that I can't submit a paper to the graduate department of philosophy and that I am ignorant of the detailed arguments of these philosophers and that I am equivocating and so forth. Well, I would agree with the submitting of the paper, and I probably don't know a whole lot about some of these philosophers you mention--it's not like I am expert or anything--but I will stick by my small gun here and claim that your method of argument is much worse than mine and that you have yet to provide evidence of a 4th alternative to mind, matter, or both.

[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John, posted 11-22-2002 12:56 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by John, posted 11-22-2002 10:13 AM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 120 (23708)
11-22-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by John
11-22-2002 10:13 AM


John:

idealism--the belief that the ultimate reality is mental or spiritual.

Platonic Forms---the ultimate, unchangable reality. These forms are mental or spiritual. Physical objects are imperfect copies of these essences. A physical chair, for example, is an imperfect copy of Chair-ness (a Platonic Form).

Since these forms are mental or spiritual and are the ultimate reality, Platonism is a form of idealism.

Now, John, without engaging in insults about my ignorance, explain to me how I am wrong in the above assertions so I can learn something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by John, posted 11-22-2002 10:13 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 11-22-2002 5:22 PM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 120 (23910)
11-23-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
11-22-2002 5:22 PM


What did the encyclopedia say the Form was? You just quoted what it was not. Just curious.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 11-22-2002 5:22 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John, posted 11-23-2002 12:05 PM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 120 (23915)
11-23-2002 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Quetzal
11-22-2002 10:24 AM


Quetzal, to critique my own idea: I seem to be speaking as though there was this "I" who was inside my "mind" as in a movie theatre looking at a screen where there is a pictorial image. I seem to have added something additional here: "me," "my mind", and the brain. That is clearly a confusion of thought on my part.

But I'm beginning to think that pinning down the physical nature of a "mental" image involves us in an infinite regress. We have an illusion of an illusion of an illusion . . .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Quetzal, posted 11-22-2002 10:24 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 3:11 AM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 120 (23958)
11-23-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John
11-23-2002 12:05 PM


I think there are degrees of fuzziness, and that "mentality" and "physicality," though problematic, are a lot less fuzzy than Platonic forms. The reason is obvious. We have experience or apparent experience with mentality and physicality, but I have no conscious experience, real or apparent, with the world of Forms.

I still think your objection is a quibble.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John, posted 11-23-2002 12:05 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by John, posted 11-23-2002 10:55 PM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 120 (24021)
11-24-2002 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Chara
11-23-2002 9:59 PM


My apologies for the generalization. I was annoyed that it was impossible to "argue" with them and I was annoyed by their notions of a "conspiracy." But that was not on this forum.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Chara, posted 11-23-2002 9:59 PM Chara has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 120 (24022)
11-24-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rationalist
11-24-2002 8:40 AM


I'm not quite sure that what philosophy talks about and what science talks about is the same thing. Science is limited to the physical. Philosophy is more ambitious and for that reason unsuccessful.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rationalist, posted 11-24-2002 8:40 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 120 (24023)
11-24-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by John
11-23-2002 10:55 PM


John,It may seem obvious to you that we have experience of perception alone (whatever that means), but that is an assumption. Don't expect everybody else to have your assumptions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John, posted 11-23-2002 10:55 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:02 AM robinrohan has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 120 (24025)
11-24-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Rationalist
11-24-2002 8:26 AM


Rationalist, that's all very well but I have yet to be convinced that the mental can be reduced to the physical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Rationalist, posted 11-24-2002 8:26 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019