Eric Holloway: A philosopher explains why thinking matter is impossible

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 21, 2020

Artificial Intelligence, Intelligent Design, Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

He’s right but Captain Kirk tumbled to it before him on Star Trek:

What’s there to do about lying liars who lie about their own lying?
Analytical philosopher Richard Johns’s recent paper in an analytical philosophy journal susses out the fact that if any such liars exist, then the lying part of them must be non-physical. That is, he offers an argument against physicalism, the popular philosophy that only physical things exist and that therefore, if humans exist, we are merely physical.
His argument is deeper version of Captain Kirk’s scheme to defeat enemy robots in I, Mudd, a 1967 episode of Star Trek. Kirk posed a paradox that led to circuit meltdown.
Eric Holloway, “A philosopher explains why thinking matter is impossible” at Mind Matters News

Comments

JVL “I tend to reflect back on mathematics which, generally, has a satisfying characteristic of being true or false regardless of beliefs” According to Gödel in what sense can we say mathematical propositions are true when they are not provable? If they are not provable then the truth or falsity rests on certain propositions and beliefs. Vividvividbleau_{February 26, 2020
February
02
Feb
26
26
2020
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer, 37: But if the physical or material is all that exists as the materialist claims, which is by the way a propositional truth claim, how can such a proposition be true? How can something that doesn’t really exist, as the materialist claims, be true? Obviously that is self-refuting. I tend to reflect back on mathematics which, generally, has a satisfying characteristic of being true or false regardless of beliefs. Generally. I won't get into the grey areas of which there are many. Anyway, in mathematics there are undisputed truths which are independent of material existence. I don't know exactly how this moves the argument forward or backward or sideways but I do like a good counter-example.JVL_{February 26, 2020
February
02
Feb
26
26
2020
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

@37 John_a_designer: According to our darwinian friends:
What is a proposition?
Potential actions + neurotransmitters.
Where do propositions exist?
Inside the brain/ neurons.
What do they look like? They look like potential actions + neurotransmitters.
How much space do they take up? They have no idea. It is inside the brain and the if you do not agree, you do not 'understand science'.
How much do they weigh?
They have no idea. *Promissory materialism* will solve it all.
How long have they existed?
Evolution answers this. Since the dawn of man.
How and where did they originate?
Random mutations + natural selection (or maybe 'spandrels', or maybe 'drift').Truthfreedom_{February 26, 2020
February
02
Feb
26
26
2020
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Truth claims are propositional. That is, truth claims are stated in the form of a proposition. But what is a proposition? Where do propositions exist? What do they look like? Where are they located? How much space do they take up? How much do they weigh? How long have they existed? How and where did they originate? Obviously, these questions are absurd because propositions are not physical. But if the physical or material is all that exists as the materialist claims, which is by the way a propositional truth claim, how can such a proposition be true? How can something that doesn’t really exist, as the materialist claims, be true? Obviously that is self-refuting. It would be one thing if our interlocutors maintained their so-called truth claims as just private subjective opinions-- something which is simply true for them. But no, they try to use a propositional truth claim as the basis of a materialistic world view which they then try to argue everyone is obligated to accept as “the default position.” Here is a discussion I had recently on another thread with Bob O’H,
It appears to me that Bob like most of our naturalist/materialist interlocutors seem to think that their world view (WV) somehow wins by default. But does it really? When have any of them ever been able to prove their WV to be true? (If any of them have, I apparently missed it.) It appears to me that the only argument that they have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: No has proven naturalism to be false, therefore, it must be true. However, the argument from ignorance is a two edged sword which cuts both ways. Here is a textbook example:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-schools-bob-oh/#comment-692515 This was based on an earlier discussion that was based on an earlier discussion... See here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ub-schools-bob-oh/#comment-692476 For some reason Bob decided to bail out on the discussion. Why is that? Is it because I pointed out to him that his “argument” was based on a logical fallacy? Of course, I suppose that is kind of embarrassing.john_a_designer_{February 26, 2020
February
02
Feb
26
26
2020
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

@34 MatSpirit, 35 Kairosfocus C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason
"Who ought to hold claim to the more dangerous idea--Charles Darwin or C. S. Lewis?... In this book Victor Reppert champions C. S. Lewis. Darwinists attempt to use science to show that our world and its inhabitants can be fully explained as the product of a mindless, purposeless system of physics and chemistry. But Lewis claimed in his argument from reason that if such materialism or naturalism were true then scientific reasoning itself could not be trusted".
https://www.amazon.com/C-S-Lewiss-Dangerous-Idea/dp/0830827323Truthfreedom_{February 26, 2020
February
02
Feb
26
26
2020
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

MS, Victor Reppert, it comes from his book, C S Lewis' Dangerous Idea. KFkairosfocus_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

KF: Who is Reppert in 8? Do you have a URL for that quote?MatSpirit_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

MS, I hear you, insofar as propositions etc are in effect coded statements. I add that the border between the two is fuzzy, as A/D and D/A exist and do so in a Fourier haunted world. KFkairosfocus_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Please notice that the materialists who regularly show up here at UD are doing nothing more than dogmatically doubling down on a logically fallacious argument: No one has ever proved that materialism is false. [Therefore] Materialism is true. However, the above is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to ignorance. It’s a textbook example of an Ad ignorantium argument (an appeal to ignorance). Of course fallacious arguments are not really arguments at all.john_a_designer_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
except that when I asked you “Are you suggesting that if we remove your brain, you’ll continue to think?”, you answered “No”.
Where and when did I post that answer? Methinks you don't know how to read for comprehension. Try again, this time without quote-mining Right, there isn’t any evidence that materialistic processes produced the brain and there isn’t any evidence that the brain creates thoughts.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

@29 Bob O'H
ET – except that when I asked you “Are you suggesting that if we remove your brain, you’ll continue to think?”, you answered “No”.
Well, the problem is, that if ET is his brain, you can NOT logically ask that question. According to your materialist view: ET "is" a brain. You can not remove a brain from itself. Truthfreedom_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

ET - except that when I asked you "Are you suggesting that if we remove your brain, you’ll continue to think?", you answered "No".Bob O'H_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
I think you provided your own answer to your question.
Right, there isn't any evidence that materialistic processes produced the brain and there isn't any evidence that the brain creates thoughts.ET_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

@26 MatSpirit
...he also speaks of defining physical properties of brain states using Cantor’s diagonal method and I’d like to see how he manages that.
And then:
I doubt the article will come to much, hence I’m holding on to my $39.95.
I suspect you do not really want to know. That is what I was pointing out.Truthfreedom_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Well, it's true that I don't know anything about Richard Johns, but he seems to be a legit scientist of some sort. His article is published by Springer and they're pretty respectable. But the article's title is, "Why Physicalism Seems to Be (and Is) Incompatible with Intentionality," which I think is incorrect. On the other hand, he also speaks of defining physical properties of brain states using Cantor's diagonal method and I'd like to see how he manages that. But then again, Eric holds the article up as proving something important about the human mind and his record in this field makes me think he is a little confused. I doubt the article will come to much, hence I'm holding on to my $39.95.MatSpirit_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

@24 MatSpirit
However, I’m not $39.95 curious for something that shows all the signs of being another disappointment.
Shows "all the signs" but you have not read it. "I do not know" works fine.Truthfreedom_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

KF: "kindly explain how continuously varying signals makes a substantial difference to the basic semantic gap here." Eric seems to be talking about the mind as if it's something digital: "... Johns shows that no completely intelligible entity can think about itself. Otherwise it will end up producing a contradiction and contradictions cannot exist." and "So what is a “completely intelligible” entity? It is defined as an entity that can be perfectly expressed by a mathematical formula." He reassures us that minds won't poof into 'contradictory non-existence' because they don't work according to a mathematical formula, which can apparently be somehow jammed by a logical contradiction. I agree with him because I don't believe such a mathematical formula describing the brain exists and one of the reasons I believe this is because our brain is not a logical device. Those neurons are not logic gates, they're analog and the same inputs won't always give the same outputs. I also am amazed that anyone would show a cheezy Startrek episode featuring robots that smoke when they encounter the liar's paradox as having some relation to the real world, let alone to the human brain. Eric seems to believe that logical devices catch fire when they encounter a logical contradiction, which makes me wonder what kind of computers the Air Force is using these days. I'd also like to see Johns' original paper. His abstract says, "This fact allows a physical property of brain states to be defined using Cantor’s diagonal construction, and then a contradiction results if a physical system is assumed to form thoughts involving that property." I remember reading about Cantor's diagonal construction 20 or 30 years ago and I think Godel used something similar to prove his incompleteness theorem. I wonder how Johns can possibly apply it to the human brain. However, I'm not $39.95 curious for something that shows all the signs of being another disappointment.MatSpirit_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

ET - I think you provided your own answer to your question.Bob O'H_{February 25, 2020
February
02
Feb
25
25
2020
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Are you suggesting that if we remove your brain, you’ll continue to think?
Please answer this question (though at first glance it may seem 'strange'): How do you "know" you have a brain? Have you seen it?Truthfreedom_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

No, I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking about. And you clearly don't understand logic and reasoning. If anyone has any evidence that thoughts emerge from a physical brain, please present it. Still waitingET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Are you suggesting that if we remove your brain, you'll continue to think?Bob O'H_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Bob O'H- Just because I have thoughts and a physical brain doesn't mean the brain produced them. Clearly you don't have a clue.ET_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

More problems for materialism:
"Materialists reduce the mind to the brain, trying to explain the mind in terms of appearances and causal relations of brain tissue. But the reality is that it is the mind that we directly experience — the brain is reducible to the mind, so to speak, not the mind to the brain". https://evolutionnews.org/2013/12/scientism_and_b/
Truthfreedom_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

ET -
If anyone has any evidence that thoughts emerge from a physical brain, please present it.
Do you have a physical brain? Do you have thoughts?Bob O'H_{February 24, 2020
February
02
Feb
24
24
2020
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

___ (Double post).Truthfreedom_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

@13 AaronS1978:
I know that’s my point.
Lol :)Truthfreedom_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Panpsychism means: materialism/ physicalism is desperate.Truthfreedom_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

@12 I know that’s my pointAaronS1978_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

@10 AaronS1978:
So according to this scientific theory...
AaronS1978, with all due respect, I do not think panpsychism is scientific at all.Truthfreedom_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Again, I recommend reading the play, "Disinherit The Wind", by Matt Chait. It gets to the heart of this debate.ET_{February 23, 2020
February
02
Feb
23
23
2020
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply