tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post7084496862644648892..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-26011326382591605612016-07-26T13:34:06.397-07:002016-07-26T13:34:06.397-07:00"I think the mind/brain dichotomy is somewhat..."I think the mind/brain dichotomy is somewhat similar, not so much as an issue of perception, but one of conception."<br /><br />Exactly. Although, the analogy can't be pushed very far because it breaks down quickly. It's only meant to be suggestive, not definitive. <br /><br />Another, analogy that comes to mind is that of a slide rule (if you are old enough to remember those things). Here you have the physical movement of the rulers at one level, and at another level you have the mathematical addition and subtraction of logarithms, and then at still another level you have the same physical operation expressed as multiplication and division. It's not the case the physical movement of the slides "produces" a mathematical result (even though that's how we would say it), but that because of the construction of the slide rule the physical movement and the mathematical processes are just different ways of expressing the underlying reality.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-40003056059256972222016-07-26T12:51:18.807-07:002016-07-26T12:51:18.807-07:00The Necker cube and other things, like the old hag...The Necker cube and other things, like the old hag/young beauty are examples of the way the mind models the world we see. It takes sensory input and produces a perceptual model that attempts to make sense of the input information. The model basically makes a best guess representation of what we're looking at. If that sensory information is ambiguous, the model can "flip" to something different that makes sense in a different way. But the mind only produces one perceptual model at a time. So we can perceive a cube as seen from from one angle or from another another, but only one at a time, because we only have one perceptual model.<br /><br />I think the mind/brain dichotomy is somewhat similar, not so much as an issue of perception, but one of conception. We have a concept of mind that is embedded in our thinking, and it becomes difficult to abandon that conception and think of it in a different way.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-64270499891919824482016-07-26T11:01:10.770-07:002016-07-26T11:01:10.770-07:00Let me throw an idea out for discussion. I was tr...Let me throw an idea out for discussion. I was trying to come up with a good analogy or metaphor that might illuminate the relationship between what we call mental processes and physical processes. I'm toying with the idea that it is like those optical illusions where you see one image and then the image flips and you see something else. Like the Necker cube ( http://www.youramazingbrain.org/supersenses/necker.htm). There is only a single set of lines that define the qube but we can interpret them in two different ways. Similarly, there is only a single underlying reality for our mind/brain but we can interpret it in two different ways the mind or the brain. It is only an inherent limitation of ours that prevents us from seeing that the two things are not two things but one.<br /> jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-74130888585827939742016-07-26T06:36:26.554-07:002016-07-26T06:36:26.554-07:00I think it's a shame that we don't see a r...I think it's a shame that we don't see a reasonable answer to a straight-forward question: What moves the Will? If the Christian concept of libertarian free will is to be considered coherent, then even though it may be immaterial, the will cannot move itself - at least not without undermining the Argument from Motion. A free will that can act without anything acting upon it is supposed to be equivalent to God. But there is only one God. On the other hand, if the will is acted upon by something outside itself, then its decisions are caused, and the will is not free. This contradiction should be regarded as a serious stumbling block to anyone who accepts the notion of free will. Yet I have never heard a cogent answer for it.<br /><br />I suppose if they just keep telling materialists that their concept of mind is irrational, they can pretend this problem doesn't exist. Don't worry, planks. You're in good company.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-59840311931108575812016-07-24T11:34:03.516-07:002016-07-24T11:34:03.516-07:00So, what do these supposed non-physical things do ...So, what do these supposed non-physical things do and how do they do it, exactly? <br /><br />We know that when people think that there is a correlate with the physical brain. So, if there is a non-physical impact on the thinking process, then this non-physical thing has to some how change the physical process. How does it do this? If this non-physical thing has no impact on the thought processes, what is the point of carrying around that thing?<br /><br />These are not new questions. Elisabeth, the Princess of Bohemia, put them to Descartes without a good answer.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53158513801229255102016-07-23T20:53:57.961-07:002016-07-23T20:53:57.961-07:00No answer on what moves the Will?No answer on what moves the Will?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-4404080793982600732016-07-23T20:28:54.566-07:002016-07-23T20:28:54.566-07:00It is wrong to say that our thoughts and actions a...<i>It is wrong to say that our thoughts and actions are caused by physical processes - our thoughts and actions ARE the physical processes.</i><br /><br />Of course they are physical processes. Still, they are caused by the antecedent physical states that lead to them. <br /><br />I agree that language plays a major role in the way we think of things, sometimes leading us down the wrong path by shaping our conceptions. The word "mind" is a good example of this. We think of it as an entity that has the property of being in its own right, but it is more of a process, or a function of the brain.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53896916548680665632016-07-23T18:41:51.982-07:002016-07-23T18:41:51.982-07:00I have to disagree, jd. It doesn't require dua...I have to disagree, jd. It doesn't require dualism to say that not all things are physical. <br /><br />You say: <i>A person - their thoughts and dreams - ARE part of the physical world, not a dualistically separate thing.</i> <br /><br />I would say: A person - their thoughts and dreams - ARE part of the world, which is made up of both physical and non-physical things (or, as the Nicene Creed puts it, "things visible and invisible"). There is no separation, but at the same time one must not confuse one thing for the other.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66723378739316881362016-07-23T18:18:03.233-07:002016-07-23T18:18:03.233-07:00I shouldn't have said "logical" cate...I shouldn't have said "logical" categories, I meant to say "conceptual" categories. Mea Culpa.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-85329411150923496442016-07-23T18:15:19.624-07:002016-07-23T18:15:19.624-07:00I think that a great deal of the difficulty that p...<br /><br />I think that a great deal of the difficulty that people have with the determinism/free will/responsibility issue is that our languages don't frame the question very well. In English, we use a Subject, Verb, Object structure. This structure puts the object and the subject into different logical categories - which is fine for most purposes. However, in this case, it is a mistake to think that mental deliberations and decision are in a different category than that physical processes. We humans, in order to understand things, have created these categories (mental states, biological states, chemical states, etc.) but from,to borrow Sean Carrol's term, a poetic naturalistic view, these are all just different ways of talking about the same underlying reality. It is fine to use the language and concepts for a particular level but it is a mistake to mix these levels.<br /><br />This mixing of categories is common: whenever, someone makes a dichotomy between the physical world and a person ("you") they have made this error. A person - their thoughts and dreams - ARE part of the physical world, not a dualistically separate thing. Whenever, someone uses the word "you" or "your" in a philosophical discussion, look at it carefully to see if it is sneaking in the implicit assumption of dualism (I think the AFR does this).<br /><br />It is wrong to say that our thoughts and actions are caused by physical processes - our thoughts and actions ARE the physical processes. <br />jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-28215453299097390552016-07-23T11:33:12.569-07:002016-07-23T11:33:12.569-07:00The cause for "things" happening (we'...<i>The cause for "things" happening (we're speaking of human actions here) is the Will.</i><br /><br />You don't get this thing we call logic. What moves the Will?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-22865443449220217682016-07-23T11:18:23.845-07:002016-07-23T11:18:23.845-07:00it is simply illogical to think that there can be ...<i>it is simply illogical to think that there can be genuinely free will. Why? Because it implies that things happen without a cause.</i><br /><br />Not so. There is no <i><b>physical</b></i> cause, to be sure. The cause for "things" happening (we're speaking of human actions here) is the Will. That is very much a cause, yet not a material one.<br /><br />It only seems illogical to the materialist, who denies the existence of non-material entities. But materialism has itself been demonstrated to be illogical multiple times.<br /><br /><i>A human decision is a movement, and it should not be uncaused</i><br /><br />Absolutely correct. And the cause for that movement is the Will.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.com