Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
33 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,419 Year: 18,455/19,786 Month: 875/1,705 Week: 127/518 Day: 1/52 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My problem with evolution
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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 120 (23598)
11-21-2002 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by robinrohan
11-21-2002 3:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
Platonic forms are ideas in the mind of God.

Except that Forms are not ideas in the mind of God, or in any other mind for that matter. Forms are independently existing real entities.

quote:
That's all I know about it.

Then why do you profess to know that they are ideas in the mind of God? What reasons do you have to believe this? Where are you getting your information?

quote:
I ignored Hume because Hume had no metaphysical philosophy.

I didn't know we were limited to what you consider metaphysical philosophy. I understood us to be talking about possible conceptions of reality. Hume most certainly had one of those.

quote:
Hume studied epistemology, not metaphysics.

And I like splitting?

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

Glad you finally caught on. God-knows-what is neither mental not physical. But we've been through this before.

quote:
You said that the word "atom" has different meanings for Ancient Greeks and moderns. No doubt.

The moral of that story was to illustrate the problems with lumping radically different ideas together, but you seemed to have missed that.

quote:
I like lumping and you like splitting.

I am having trouble getting past the flippancy of this comment.

So you like lumping? The irony is that you seem to not have even a minimal grasp of any of the things you like to lump together.

quote:
Both are necessary.

Synthesis is necessary. Lumping is just sloppy.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2002 3:32 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 12:33 AM John has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 120 (23601)
11-21-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by robinrohan
11-21-2002 3:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
I ignored Hume because Hume had no metaphysical philosophy. Hume studied epistemology, not metaphysics.

Sure he did he thought it was a load of old cobblers....

And I`m pretty sure he "studied" metaphysics quite carefully afterall it took the brunt of most of his attacks....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2002 3:32 PM robinrohan 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 120 (23633)
11-22-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by robinrohan
11-22-2002 12:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
I think what this is all about is that you just hate pinning something down and having something to say

BS. I dislike your thinking you have something to say when actually, you are more confused than you could ever imagine.

quote:
you want the possibility of that other no-name reality being out there somewhere possibly. Fine.

You really really really need to actually study what you are debating.

quote:
We have to go on what we know now.

Well, that would be Hume. Where would you like to go from there?

quote:
And all we know is that the traditional metaphysical philosophies can be boiled down to 3.

I beg you.... please please please submit your work as a term paper in an upper level philosophy class at a reputable university.

quote:
If you want to add a forth and call that "God knows what," go ahead.

You may think you are jabbing at me, but you are actually jabbing at one of the most influential minds of the last 500 years-- Kant. And at the same time demonstrating your utter ignorance of his metaphysics. Interesting...

quote:
Are there differences in detail between the various idealistic philosophers?--of course there are.

Bet you don't know what they are. Bet you can't even tell me the variations are on the use of the term (without looking it up).

quote:
I wasn't talking about details--I was talking about what they had in common.

Fine, but comparing commonality isn't the same as boiling them down to the same thing. To do that, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT DETAILS.

quote:
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.

hmmmm.... now we are talking about idealism. Did this not start off being about mind, physical and dual?

You are equivocating again. That's what happens when you don't pay attention to detail.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 12:33 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 1:40 AM John 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 120 (23695)
11-22-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by robinrohan
11-22-2002 1:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
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)

More like deified 3 traditional metaphysical beliefs. My initial response was to the dogmatic tone of your post.

What you've done is latch onto some very fuzzy definitions of pretty much every 'class' of metaphysic you've mentioned. Your definitions change as you go, even. "Idealism" has meant numerous different things. You gallop happily right over that, mixing and matching as you go.

What you want, I think, is to divide metaphysics into perceptions-are-illusory and perceptions-are-real. This isn't the division between idealism and materialism-- the terms have had too many incarnations for this to be meaningful.

quote:
and you jumped on me like I had committed a sin against the holy ghost of Hume.

Little Davy made a pretty good mess of things. But actually I think you've committed as sin against every philosopher whose work you've distorted via lumping.

quote:
And then you started telling me that I can't submit a paper to the graduate department of philosophy

I challenged you to submit a paper.

quote:
and that I am ignorant of the detailed arguments of these philosophers and that I am equivocating and so forth.

Which, by your own admission, you are.

quote:
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

But you feel qualified to lump them together? Why does this not strike you as absurd?

quote:
it's not like I am expert or anything

Glad that you are waking up to that.

quote:
and claim that your method of argument is much worse than mine

What method is that? The one involving actually having read the philosophers I discuss?

quote:
and that you have yet to provide evidence of a 4th alternative to mind, matter, or both.

You have yet to provide evidence of mind or matter. Thus far, all you have made are assertions. And I have provided numerous examples of alternative conceptions of reality. Your replies are to simply reassert your premises. It isn't very convincing. Tell me why, for example, a Platonic Form is an invalid conception? Or is more invalid than that of mind?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 1:40 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 11:24 AM John has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4155 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 83 of 120 (23698)
11-22-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by robinrohan
11-21-2002 12:03 PM


Hi robin,

Obsidian pretty much covered what I wanted to say. The only thing I would stress here is that mind and brain are basically just two descriptions of attributes of cognition - the result/output of differential coactivation of various neurons ("mind") and the neuroarchitecture that supports it ("brain"). I think you're pushing the dichotomy bit a little too hard, here. They are functionally indissoluable - mental images are affects, not effects (if that makes sense).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2002 12:03 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2002 11:59 AM Quetzal 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 120 (23776)
11-22-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by robinrohan
11-22-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
Platonic Forms---the ultimate, unchangable reality. These forms are mental or spiritual.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (© 1967 Volume 3 pg 111, under idealism): Neither a Platonic Form nor a shape is a mental entity. (The part about the shape, obviously, isn't relevant but I left it in rather than edit the sentence.)

Thus we eliminate mental from your statement above, leaving spiritual. We add physical, which option the Forms are not. Then we add back mental, which a Form is not. This gives us three worlds, not two. This gives us seven possibilities. Each world standing alone and the four permutations of those universes disallowing reversals of order. This is significantly more than three-- mental, physical, dualistic.

If you wish to argue that spiritual and mental are the same, then then we must eliminate the joint mental/physical world leaving us only with the physical and the Form world -- not physical and not mental/spiritual. Again the options work out to more than three. In fact, the numbers work out to just what we had above.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by robinrohan, posted 11-22-2002 11:24 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2002 11:51 AM John 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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 120 (23918)
11-23-2002 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by robinrohan
11-23-2002 11:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
What did the encyclopedia say the Form was? You just quoted what it was not. Just curious.

For Plato, the Forms were Reality with a capital R. They were what truly is, just as some folks think that the physical world is what truly is. The world we live in is an imperfect reflection of this Form-World. You can complain that the world of Forms is a pretty fuzzy idea, and I'd agree, but no more fuzzy than the ideas of mind, substance, or just about anything else. Writing it off because it is fuzzy just isn't fair if you write in equally fuzzy concepts.

Latter derivations of the theory of forms by christian theologians made them into ideas in the mind of god, amongst other variations.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2002 11:51 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by robinrohan, posted 11-23-2002 4:44 PM John 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

  
hiddenexit77
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 120 (23982)
11-23-2002 9:00 PM


I love this topic. When we say "mind creates matter" we could be referring to not only a foreign God or some other mind, but we could be referring to our own minds. Maybe mind creates matter creates mind creates matter in an endless cycle. But we need a better term than "create". Perhaps...."leads to"? Because we know that matter cannot create mind in the way that a sculptor creates a work of art.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019