About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neither can I.

Bob Kolker


Post 41

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Mind" is the brain in conscious action and awareness. Intelligence is how well it can function. The autonomic functions of the brain are sans mind. You cannot find any concepts with any machine or detection device. Epistemological existence is not non-existence, it is non-metaphysical existence except for the brain and referent base. "God" exists as an idea; "God" as a material fact is bogus. Like many highly intelligent people, Bob is unknowledgeably stupid in some ways, even though you can't find it with a Cat Scan or MRI. This means Bob can claim not to be stupid after all. But, of course, he's more "intelligent" than "most Objectivists." Isn't "intelligence" a "ghost," too?  All of Bob's essential arguments involve necessary support from stolen concepts, the biggest one being using concepts while implicitly if not explicitly denying their existence.

Bob, I can appreciate "philosophy lite," as I tend to the same, but I don't see how this other stuff you keep pushing can make anything better for anyone, not in understanding or human action and well being. Material reductionism means reduction from something--that is, concepts to the purely physical. But the exercise is only abstract unless you fire a bullet into your head. No "mind" means you are brain dead.

--Brant


Post 42

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 1:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brant says:

Bob, I can appreciate "philosophy lite," as I tend to the same, but I don't see how this other stuff you keep pushing can make anything better for anyone, not in understanding or human action and well being. Material reductionism means reduction from something--that is, concepts to the purely physical. But the exercise is only abstract unless you fire a bullet into your head. No "mind" means you are brain dead.


I respond:

No. I am brain-alive. My brain is me and I am my brain. Material and physical down to the subatomic level. That is what I am.

Bob Kolker


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 1:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Glenn,



Mr. Kolker is a zombie (see here).  He acts just like us, but there's nobody home.

 

Fascinating how he keeps repeating the same blithering nonsense like a broken record but refuses to answer specific arguments. 

 

I had never heard the term “philosophical zombie” before.  Maybe that’s why those decrepit dudes in the George Romero films are always screaming, “More brains!”   They resent people with an identity. 

 

You can’t have an identity unless you first acknowledge there is a self (i.e., a “mind”). Zombies have to keep eating everyone else’s gray matter so they won’t feel so all alone.


Post 44

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Igor, would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?

Igor: And you won't be angry?

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.

Igor: Abby someone.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?

Igor: Abby Normal.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby Normal?

Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven and a half foot long, fifty-four inch wide GORILLA?
[shakes and grabs him]

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?

Post 45

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reply to #43

I had never heard the term “philosophical zombie” before. Maybe that’s why those decrepit dudes in the George Romero films are always screaming, “More brains!” They resent people with an identity.



I respond:

I surely do not resent a Normal. A Normal is what he/she is and I am what I am. And I am by purely natural physical processes too. There is no Mystery to the way I work. There may be a lot of technical problems to be solved, but no Mystery. I work according to natural laws. You work on Magic, or so you claim. We have no conflict. Only some intellectual disagreement, in which my view is favored by Facts and yours is not. What is there to resent?

And furthermore I have a sterling advantage. I am not burdened with emotion above and beyond glandular secretions. You have to struggle with your Mind. What a burden! You fret and fume over Morality. I don't. I just do the right thing as I have learned to do by inductive means. The owl hunts in the dark and I reason in the light, just as my brain (which is really me) is wont to do, a product of four billion years of Evolution. I don't need a Ghost in my Attic to tell me what to do. I have learned to pass as a human. You are still struggling.

Bob Kolker -- Zombie



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob is obviously thoroughly committed to his zombie-ism, but perhaps we can redeem this discussion by placing it in the wider context of the long-standing philosophical debate on the metaphysical nature of mind.  Here are some valuable insights by Leonard Peikoff from OPAR:

"Materialists -- men such as Democritus, Hobbes, Marx, Skinner -- champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man's faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge.
 
"Despite their implicit mysticism, materialists typically declare that their viewpoint constitutes the only scientific or naturalistic approach to philosophy. The belief in consciousness, they explain, implies supernaturalism. This claim represents a capitulation to idealism. For centuries the idealists maintained that the soul is a divine fragment or mystic ingredient longing to escape the ‘prison of the flesh’; the idealists invented the false alternative of consciousness versus science. The materialists simply take over this false alternative, then promote the other side of it. This amounts to rejecting arbitrarily the possibility of a naturalistic view of consciousness.
 
"The facts, however, belie any equation of consciousness with mysticism. Consciousness is an attribute of perceived entities here on Earth. It is a faculty possessed under definite conditions by a certain group of living organisms. It is directly observable (by introspection). It has a specific nature, including specific physical organs, and acts accordingly, i.e., lawfully. It has a life-sustaining function: to perceive the facts of nature and thereby enable the organisms that possess it to act successfully. In all this there is nothing unnatural or supernatural. There is no basis for the suggestion that consciousness is separable from matter -- let alone opposed to it -- no hint of immortality, no kinship with any alleged transcendent realm.
 
"Materialists sometimes argue that consciousness is unnatural on the grounds that it cannot be perceived by extrospection, has no shape, color, or smell, cannot be handled, weighed, or put in a test tube (all of which applies equally to the faculty of vision). One may just as well argue that the eyeball is unreal because it cannot be perceived by introspection, does not have the qualities of a process of awareness (such as intensity or scope of integration), and cannot theorize about itself, suffer neurotic problems, or fall in love. These two arguments are interchangeable. It makes no more sense arbitrarily to legislate features of matter as the standard of existents and then deny consciousness, than to do the reverse. The facts are that matter exists and so does consciousness, the faculty of perceiving it.”

You don’t have to respond, Bob. There is no need for you to regurgitate the same nauseating message for the 87th time.

 


Post 47

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
reply to 46

Bob is obviously thoroughly committed to his zombie-ism, but perhaps we can redeem this discussion by placing it in the wider context of the long-standing philosophical debate on the metaphysical nature of mind.

I reply:

Of course I am. It is my identity. You are big on Identity aren't you? I am my brain and my brain is me. The rest of my body is for transportation, food getting and recreation.

Bob Kolker


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,
Mind is a ghost....It is a bogus notion...
I am my brain and my brain is me. The rest of my body is for transportation, food getting and recreation.
Speaking of recreation, have you ever thought about show business...



Post 49

Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - 11:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
reply to post 48.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of someone being totally physical? Does the idea pose a threat to your well being? If so, why? Why can't you accept that at least some of us have no non-physical component at all. Like me for instance. I have used the best technology currently available to demonstrate to my satisfaction that my intellect is totally brain based, therefore physical. I have no mental states, only brain states.

I have passed the Turing Test. I have passed for human for over 70 years. I have taught myself to read body language. I even have a driver's license. Why do you insist I need a non-material mind? I really don't, you know.

This whole dispute reminds me of the story of Luminferous Aether, a visco-elsastic medium which is supposed to fill all of space so that light waves may be carried from hither to yon. There is only one trouble. Aether is undetectable and unmeasurable.** Not only that, every wave phenomenon that aether is supposed to explain, can be explained by non-aetheric theories, such as quantum field theory. In short, even if aether exists, no one can (objectively) detect it, measure it or even figure out its physical nature. In fact, its existence contradicts the conservation of momentum. Yet physicists (including Maxwell and Lorentz believed it exists). Well, Mind is like Aether. Intelligent people believe it exists, but there is no objective way of detecting its existence or figuring out what laws it obeys. No one has ever detected a mind in a body other than his own and there is no empirically proof that anyone but you has an immaterial mind. Not only that, every function that mind is supposed to perform can be just as well done by a physical human brain. My brain does it for me. I am just as happy without a mind as you are with one. I laugh, I play, I ride my bike and I even vote Republican on occasion. Who needs a mind? If it breaks one can't even operate on it.

Aspberger Forever! And autistic people don't need no steenking computers either. They are born with one, batteries included.

Bob Kolker

** The failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment put the nail in Aether's coffin.

PS: Robbie got his hands on Ann Francis' luscious body before Leslie Nielson did. Don't knock it!
(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/27, 11:03pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 12:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,
Why are you so hostile to the idea of someone being totally physical? Does the idea pose a threat to your well being?

It's an issue of logical coherence.  I like to understand things, and I cannot believe that an intelligent person can walk around with such a massive delusion.

PS: Robbie got his hands on Ann Francis' luscious body before Leslie Nielson did. Don't knock it!
More power to you!  But tell me: where is your image of the luscious Ann Francis?  It ain't on high gloss photo paper.  It ain't a flickering image on the inside of your skull.  So where is it, if not in your mind?



Post 51

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 4:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can simulate A.F. using my neurons. Not as good as the Real Thing though. Can you do any better, short of getting a handful of the Real Flesh? As to where? Inside my skull and spinal column, where the neurons, axons and dendrites live. Semi-permeable membranes and neurotransmitters pack a punch.

By the way, you Mind People think your "mental events" amount to something. Not so. There are merely epiphenomena of physical processes. They have no causal efficacy. It is still your neurons that tell your muscles to move and your glands to secrete. A "mental event" is like the ticking of an old fashioned clock. It is the noise that the balance wheel and escapement bar make from their motion. That is physical. The epiphenomena, whatever it is, is the effect of physical causes. Actually it is noise made by clattering and rubbing parts. Our so-called mental life is noise. The Real Thing is potassium and sodium ions going through a membrane moved by electrostatic forces. Anyway you look at it, we are Meat Machines. Organic, but physical. And when we die we rot and stink just like any other kind of bad meat.

I am happy (in the neuronal and glandular sense) to be what I am. All meat, all the time.

A is A.

Ba'al Chatzaf
(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 2/28, 4:55am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From now on, I'll just quote Peikoff as a way of putting your "mental notations" in historical context.  At least, that will be instructive, since you obviously have no intention of rethinking your (shall we say) unique "point of view."

"Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man's faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge."



Post 53

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And, while you're quoting Peikoff, Dennis; I'll be quoting Rand -- and, together, we will turn him from ... the Dark Side ...

;-)

Man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity. The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter.

Living organisms possess the power of self-initiated motion, which inanimate matter does not possess; man's consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking), which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess.

But just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness.

His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has the power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them. He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse.

He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. (The use or misuse of his cognitive faculty determines a man's choice of values, which determine his emotions and his character. It is in this sense that man is a being of self-made soul.)--PWNI, 26

Ed


Post 54

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No you won't. I operate on facts, not philosophical suppositions. Facts trump theories, each and every time. The only philosophical principle I hold absolutely is the law of non-contradiction. There are no contradictions in reality.

Bob Kolker


Post 55

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I operate on facts, not philosophical suppositions. Facts trump theories, each and every time. The only philosophical principle I hold absolutely is the law of non-contradiction.


Ugh, this is just a train wreck.


Post 56

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bob,

What do you think of the following 8 absolutes (adapted from Merril; “Axioms: The Eight-Fold Way”)? …

 

 ===========

1. The Law of the Excluded Middle

 

Every statement is either true or false. Attempts have been made to construct "non-Aristotelian" or so-called "multi-valued logics." (Cf. Kramer 1970, 132-133.) But no such structure is truly assertable; to make an assertion is to claim that something is true rather than false. Note the absurdity of attempting to claim that it is true that a "three-valued" logic is valid, and therefore Aristotelian logic is invalid.

 

2. The Law of Contradiction

 

No statement may be simultaneously true and false -- it is impossible to argue, or even to think, without accepting this principle.

 

            3. The Law of Bivalence

 

The third law of logic is usually given in the form that "the denial of a true statement is false, and the denial of a false statement is true". Here again we have a proposition that is quite literally undeniable; for to deny it is to assert that it is not necessarily false!

 

            4. Existence

 

Rand takes it as axiomatic that "existence exists" (Rand 1961, 152). That is, there is something; the universe is not empty. This, again, is undeniable; if nothing exists, who is denying it, and to whom is he addressing his denial? Moreover, it is inescapable; one cannot assert anything to be correspondence-true without the assumption that a reality exists to which it corresponds.

 

            5. Identity

 

The second metaphysical axiom, the axiom of identity, is Rand's "A is A." If something exists, then some thing, some specific thing with a specifiable identity, must exist. A thing is itself and cannot simultaneously be something else with a different identity. This axiom is equivalent to asserting that the laws of logic apply to the material universe. (Or: that everything which is correspondence-true is also coherence-true.) Again, this is undeniable and inescapable; if any statement about reality can be both true and false, how can anything be asserted of it?

 

            6. Causality

 

Third, we have the axiom of causality. This may be taken to state that everything in the universe has a cause in the general Aristotelian (rather than the limited modern) sense. If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a reason for it. It doesn't "just happen." This is equivalent to saying that the contents of the universe are related, that they in some way interact. Of course, if they do, they must do so in accord with logic, that is, there must be a reason for the behavior to occur as it does. Just as the axiom of identity asserts that logic applies to the properties of entities; so the axiom of causality asserts that the laws of logic apply to the properties of change. Again this is undeniable and inescapable; for if anything could become anything else without restriction, no entity could have an identity. (Cf. Rand 1961, 188.)

 

(We need not necessarily exclude the possibility of "metaphysical chance"; it is conceivable that causality may apply stochastically. For instance, there might be no specific cause for the decay of a particular radium atom, but a cause for the decay of radium atoms as a class which inclusively causes the decay of each one at some random time.)

 

            7. Consciousness

 

The axiom of consciousness asserts that it is possible for consciousness (the perception of reality) to exist. This is undeniable and inescapable; he who denies it denies that he is conscious; since he cannot perceive reality, how can he make any assertions about what is possible or not possible? (Cf. Peikoff 1991, 5, 9-10.)

 

8. Volition

 

The axiom of volition asserts that free will is possible. Again, this is undeniable and inescapable. He who denies it is claiming that he is a deterministic mechanism; by what means does he establish that he is not merely programmed to deny volition, or indeed to make any other statement? (Cf. Branden 1963.)

 ===========

 

Adapted from:

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RonMerrill/AxiomsTheEightFoldWay.html

 

Ed


Post 57

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The law of non-contradiction implies something exists.

Proof:

Suppose nothing exists. But the supposition that nothing exists is something that exists. Contradiction. Also to suppose something exists requires the existence of a supposer. Ergo the assumption that nothing exists produces a contradiction, so by the law of non-contradiction, something exists.

The law of non-contradiction is also equivalent to the law of identity. Proof: write up a truth table.

In classical logic the law of non-contradiction implies the law of the excluded middle. Proof: Apply De Morgan's theorem to -(p&-p) to get p .v. -p. Apply De Morgans theorem in the other direction to get the converse.

A little logic and the law of non-contradiction reduces much of the clutter.

Bob Kolker


Post 58

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

Besides the Law of Non-contradiction, you didn't -- really -- say anything about the other 7 absolutes which I mentioned.

Also, I was wondering if you agree with me -- either in part, or absolutely! -- about the absolutism both of reason, and of reality.

That's at least 9 absolutes so far.

Ed

Post 59

Thursday, February 28, 2008 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

Certainly you must agree that what is self-evidently entailed by a self-evident proposition -- what Rand called a corollary -- is also absolute (if the base proposition was).

Am I -- either in part, or absolutely -- wrong about how it is that you feel about that?

Ed

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.