Enlightenment & Materialism

[DavidHenry]

DQ: That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

DH: If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

DQ: How has the sanity of these people been determined?

DH: I think you know what I meant.
The category of vehicles doesn't contain anything that isn't worthy of meeting its definition, ie, the definition is objective, otherwise we could place anything in there.

By "objective", then, you must mean "what we subjectively keep fixed for a period of time".

-

"What" did we fix for a period of time...?

[Leyla Shen]

If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

Because sanity itself is subjective, and because subjectivity is not dependent upon consensus.

[DavidHenry]

Leyla wrote.....blah,blah,blah.

[David Quinn]

DQ: That's true. Once you subjectively create the definition, you have a template by which to sort things. However, it remains a debatable question as to whether the sorting of things through a subjective template can be considered an objective process.

DH: If every sane person agrees with it, how can it be subjective..?

DQ: How has the sanity of these people been determined?

DH: I think you know what I meant.
The category of vehicles doesn't contain anything that isn't worthy of meeting its definition, ie, the definition is objective, otherwise we could place anything in there.

By "objective", then, you must mean "what we subjectively keep fixed for a period of time".

"What" did we fix for a period of time...?

In this case, the definition of a vehicle. "Fixed" as in rigidly maintain.

-

[DavidHenry]

In this case, the definition of a vehicle. "Fixed" as in rigidly maintain.

Yes, but vehicle doesn't relate to any ole thing, even if its definition is broader than car, ie, it reflects objects of reality, so it makes no difference who created the word, who created the definition, just as long as it's accepted and the category/definition is respected by virtue of what it defines, IOW, cats can never be cars A=A.

[Carl G]

Ultimately there is no car. End of story.

[DavidHenry]

Ultimately there is no car. End of story.

LOL....eom.

[Leyla Shen]

If a hundred Westerners, rich in petroleum, see and use thing A as “vehicle,” and 10 tribal Africans, poor in petroleum, see and use identical thing A as “home,” what is the objective reality of thing A? Function? Its parts? A whole?

[DavidHenry]

If a hundred Westerners, rich in petroleum, see and use thing A as “vehicle,” and 10 tribal Africans, poor in petroleum, see and use identical thing A as “home,” what is the objective reality of thing A? Function? Its parts? A whole?

It's most basic and shared characteristics define it+ idiots have no say in philosophy or science.

[Leyla Shen]

It's most basic and shared characteristics define it…

Right. And that holds good in both situations. You will note also that in both situations there is consensus as to thing A‘s shared characteristics.

+ idiots have no say in philosophy or science.

Yes, I know--and, oh, how I agree. I also think that idiots who don’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s” have no right to speak, let alone have a say in what is objectively real given what is clearly its extremely abstract, and therefore subjective, nature...

[Tomas]

Isaac,

What I'm saying is that consciousness is not caused by something other than what it already is. Consciousness, in my view, is equivalent to a subset of physical brain activity, that exists by itself. It's not caused by anything other than physical forces that shape molecules and chemical reactions, etc.

That's a pretty big "etc." you have there. Consciousness is not simplified when it is reduced to the physical forces that make it up, since there are a lot of physical forces that can be looked at, some known, many still unknown. What practical difference is there between this and what you see as the alternative?

As far as I can tell, this amounts to: "you can look at mind from the perspective of biology, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, psychiatry, or any of the established sciences... but you cannot look at the mind from the perspective of philosophy of mind."

Too bad, Trevor, Isaac didn't answer...

.

[Isaac]

Isaac,

What I'm saying is that consciousness is not caused by something other than what it already is. Consciousness, in my view, is equivalent to a subset of physical brain activity, that exists by itself. It's not caused by anything other than physical forces that shape molecules and chemical reactions, etc.

That's a pretty big "etc." you have there. Consciousness is not simplified when it is reduced to the physical forces that make it up, since there are a lot of physical forces that can be looked at, some known, many still unknown. What practical difference is there between this and what you see as the alternative?

As far as I can tell, this amounts to: "you can look at mind from the perspective of biology, chemistry, physics, neuroscience, psychiatry, or any of the established sciences... but you cannot look at the mind from the perspective of philosophy of mind."

Ok, ok. I agree with you guys that boundaries are illusionary. I see what you mean. But still, I don't think it really gets us anywhere. It's sort of like the Socrates 'I know nothing' thing. That's really what it amounts to.

JBS Haldane is right on the money when he said:

"The world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

Also, I think Thomas Huxley is reasonable when he writes:

"How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djinn, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."

There are problems, which seem solvable, at least in principle, through scientific methods, and then there are mysteries (such as consciousness), which do not seem solvable, even in principle. The cognitive capabilities of all organisms are limited by biology, e.g. a mouse will never speak like a human. In the same way, consciousness may be beyond our understanding.