tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2234219810461973946..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Brainless Mind part 2Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67774001788316358102018-03-23T19:36:12.015-07:002018-03-23T19:36:12.015-07:00Here is my take on claiming that an argument is ev...<a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2018/03/argumentum-ad-argument.html" rel="nofollow">Here is my take</a> on claiming that an argument is evidence.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68941092698792643882018-03-22T17:42:27.525-07:002018-03-22T17:42:27.525-07:00Joe, your whole spiel about Toulmin is irrelevant ...Joe, your whole spiel about Toulmin is irrelevant to what we were talking about. We were not debating what constitutes an argument. We were debating what EVIDENCE is. And that whole thing you quoted doesn't even mention the word. It does use the term 'Data' in a way that is consistent with 'evidence'. You really need to follow the discussion.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67038549895137550132018-03-22T11:22:38.119-07:002018-03-22T11:22:38.119-07:00by Richard Nordquist
Updated April 12, 2017
The To...<a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/toulmin-model-argument-1692474" rel="nofollow"><b>by Richard Nordquist</b></a><br />Updated April 12, 2017<br />The Toulmin model (or system) is a six-part model of argument (with similarities to the syllogism) introduced by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his book The Uses of Argument (1958). <br /><br /><b>QUOTE</b><br />The Toulmin model (or "system") can be used as a tool for developing, analyzing, and categorizing arguments.<br /><br />Observations<br />"What is it that makes arguments work? What makes arguments effective? The British logician Stephen Toulmin made important contributions to argument theory that are useful for this line of inquiry. Toulmin found six components of arguments:<br /><br />[T]he Toulmin model provides us with useful tools for analyzing the components of arguments."<br />(J. Meany and K. Shuster, Art, Argument, and Advocacy. IDEA, 2002)<br />Claim: A statement that something is so.<br />Data: The backing for the claim.<br />Warrant: The link between the claim and the grounds.<br />Backing: Support for the warrant.<br />Modality: The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument.<br />Rebuttal: Exceptions to the initial claim.<br /><br />"[Toulmin's] general model of 'data' leading to a 'claim,' mediated by a 'warrant' with any necessary 'backing,' has been very influential as a new standard of logical thinking, particularly among scholars of rhetoric and speech communication."<br />(C. W. Tindale, Rhetorical Argumentation. Sage, 2004) <br />Using the Toulmin System<br />Use the seven-part Toulmin system to begin to develop an argument . . .. Here is the Toulmin system:<br />Make your claim.<br />Restate or qualify your claim.<br />Present good reasons to support your claim.<br />Explain the underlying assumptions that connect your claim and your reasons. If an underlying assumption is controversial, provide backing for it.<br />Provide additional grounds to support your claim.<br />Acknowledge and respond to possible counterarguments.<br />Draw a conclusion, stated as strongly as possible.<br />(Lex Runciman, Carolyn Lengel, and Kate Silverstein, Exercises to Accompany The Everyday Writer, 4th ed. Macmillan, 2009)<br />The Toulmin Model and the Syllogism<br />"Toulmin's model actually boils down to a rhetorical expansion of the syllogism . . .. Although the reactions of others are anticipated, the model is primarily directed at representing the argumentation for the standpoint of the speaker or writer who advances the argumentation. The other party remains in fact passive: The acceptability of the claim is not made dependent on a systematic weighing up of arguments for and against the claim."<br />(F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2004)<br /><br />Toulmin on the Toulmin Model<br />"When I wrote [The Uses of Argument], my aim was strictly philosophical: to criticize the assumption, made by most Anglo-American academic philosophers, that any significant argument can be put in formal terms . . ..<br />"In no way had I set out to expound a theory of rhetoric or argumentation: my concern was with twentieth-century epistemology, not informal logic. Still less had I in mind an analytical model like that which, among scholars of Communication, came to be called 'the Toulmin model.'"<br />(Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, rev. ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003)<br />CITE <b>close QUOTE</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84282785555427472212018-03-22T11:20:42.260-07:002018-03-22T11:20:42.260-07:00Blogger im-skeptical said...
Joe, I provided the d...Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />Joe, I provided the dictionary definition of the word. If you want to go by your own non-standard definition, fine. But don't go around trying to tell the world that YOURS is the right one.<br /><br /><b>/sorry you are misled by intellectual myopia. Tulmin is the standard, using a dictionary of popular usage is not intellectual turning to a expert like Tulmin is. Tulmin is the stnadard in debate and in cricketer which is the stuidy of argumentation.,</b><br /><br />Wiki<br /><br />Stephen Edelston Toulmin (/ˈtuːlmɪn/; 25 March 1922 – 4 December 2009) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, was considered his most influential work, particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication, and in computer science.<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54535490422109847032018-03-22T11:13:21.653-07:002018-03-22T11:13:21.653-07:00- I disagree. Actually, the first three of your ex...- I disagree. Actually, the first three of your examples can be considered evidence, although memory is unreliable and can't be objectively verified. Reasoning does not fit the definition. As I said, I go by the definition. But you haven't given an alternative definition. You seem to be equating 'evidence' with 'reason to believe'. Those two terms are not equivalent. People have reasons to believe things that are not evidence. For example, you might believe a statement simply because you are emotionally attached to the person making the statement. That's not based on evidence.<br /><br />I should have said "Justified reasons for belief." I thought that was clear but apparently not. And all the types of potential evidence, including sensory perception <b>can</b> be mistaken, of course. That's why there is the "justified" caveat. As I've said, for a raw datum of any kind to qualify as "evidence" it already has to be integrated into many other things you already know. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything. Think of DNA evidence. There was potential DNA evidence lying around crime scenes 200 years ago but it wasn't actual evidence yet because the background knowledge was missing that would have enabled people to see it and make sense of it, to integrate it inot the rest of what they knew. 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40950195601526553892018-03-22T10:03:20.340-07:002018-03-22T10:03:20.340-07:00Joe, I provided the dictionary definition of the w...Joe, I provided the dictionary definition of the word. If you want to go by your own non-standard definition, fine. But don't go around trying to tell the world that YOURS is the right one.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90577674342652984322018-03-22T09:46:30.186-07:002018-03-22T09:46:30.186-07:00m-skeptical said...
Joe, first, the article you ci...m-skeptical said...<br />Joe, first, the article you cited is about "Evidence In Argument", not "Evidence Is Argument". You should read it. Look at the "types of evidence" you cited. None of them are argument. <br /><br /><b>(1) Do you not know what the word "extension" means? go look that up then we talk.I said it's an extension of two different points. One kind of evidence is testimony, if we see argument as a kind of testimony then it's an extension of that.<br /><br />(2)It does not say "in argumet" it says :in argumentation," Argumentation is the process of arguing. What one does with argumentation is to make arguments.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Second, this is about what serves as evidence in a legal or academic setting, not necessarily what scientists would call evidence that would support a scientific theory. Scientific processes are not based on testimony, for example. As for modeling, they are not talking about argumentation. They are referring to the use of a well-established model of reality that can be compared to the actual state of affairs. This is objective and factual - not a matter of debate. Arguments ARE a matter of debate. Evidence is not.<br /><br /><br /><b>consciousness is not a scientific question only. science does not own consciousness, this blog is not a science blog. We are doing philosophy and theology and thinking i general here, we don't need to just frame every thing in scientific terms only.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16876613681888292632018-03-22T08:04:13.630-07:002018-03-22T08:04:13.630-07:00Joe, first, the article you cited is about "E...Joe, first, the article you cited is about "Evidence <b>In</b> Argument", not "Evidence <b>Is</b> Argument". You should read it. Look at the "types of evidence" you cited. None of them are argument. Second, this is about what serves as evidence in a legal or academic setting, not necessarily what scientists would call evidence that would support a scientific theory. Scientific processes are not based on testimony, for example. As for modeling, they are not talking about argumentation. They are referring to the use of a well-established model of reality that can be compared to the actual state of affairs. This is objective and factual - not a matter of debate. Arguments ARE a matter of debate. Evidence is not.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8083084889699833782018-03-22T07:55:31.046-07:002018-03-22T07:55:31.046-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8384014414811728962018-03-22T00:09:06.617-07:002018-03-22T00:09:06.617-07:00Reasoning does not fit the definition. As I said, ...Reasoning does not fit the definition. As I said, I go by the definition. But you haven't given an alternative definition. You seem to be equating 'evidence' with 'reason to believe'. Those two terms are not equivalent. People have reasons to believe things that are not evidence. For example, you might believe a statement simply because you are emotionally attached to the person making the statement. That's not based on evidence.<br /><br /><b>Reasoning is or can be extensions of demonstration or testimony that fits the definition of evidence. Reason is not merely an opinion,if it follows the rules of logic it's sound and valid it's a from of support for opinion.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64441125305604597822018-03-22T00:04:33.960-07:002018-03-22T00:04:33.960-07:00I think we can consider logic and analysis as devo...I think we can consider logic and analysis as devoid via a extension of testimony. It might also be a extension of demonstration.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69390422182091128702018-03-21T23:54:24.351-07:002018-03-21T23:54:24.351-07:00Stephen
Tulmi's Analysis of argument publishe...Stephen <br />Tulmi's Analysis of argument published by Darmouth Uniersity<br /><a href="https://writing-speech.dartmouth.edu/learning/materials-first-year-writers/logic-and-argument#reviewing" rel="nofollow"><b>https://writing-speech.dartmouth.edu/learning/materials-first-year-writers/logic-and-argument</b></a><br /><br />"REVIEWING THE GROUNDS OF YOUR ARGUMENT<br />In crafting an argument, you will make a claim and gather evidence to convince your reader that this claim is valid. <b>Once you've collected the evidence or reasons that support your claim,</b> you'll want to consider whether that evidence is sufficient. In other words, you'll want to be sure that your evidence warrants the claim you're trying to make. You can begin this process by assessing your use of evidence."<br /><br /><br /><br />by Richard Nordquist<br />Updated September 26, 2017<br />"In argument, evidence refers to facts, documentation or testimony used to strengthen a claim, support an argument or reach a conclusion."<br /><br /><br /><a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/evidence-argument-term-1690682" rel="nofollow"><b>https://www.thoughtco.com/evidence-argument-term-1690682</b></a><br /><br /><b>Quote</b><br />"The evidence isn't the same as proof. "Whereas evidence allows for professional judgment, the proof is absolute and incontestable," said Denis Hayes in "Learning and Teaching in Primary Schools." <br /><br />Observations About Evidence<br />"Without evidence to support them, any statements you make in your writing have little or no value; they're simply opinions, and 10 people may have 10 different opinions, none of which is more valid than the others unless there is clear and potent evidence to support it." -- Neil Murray, "Writing Essays in English Language and Linguistics," 2012<br /><br />"When conducting empirical research, the researcher's primary responsibility is to provide evidence to support his or her claim about the relationship between the variables described in the research hypothesis. T]he researcher must collect data that will convince us of the accuracy of his or her predictions." -- Bart L. Weathington et al., "Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences," 2010<br /><br /><b>close Quote</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Gooogle<br /><br />"what constitutes "evidence" in argumentation?"<br /><br /><a href="https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DkizWrGeMpS0jgTPmb34DA&q=what+constitutes+%22evidence%22+in+argumentation%3F&oq=what+constitutes+%22evidence%22+in+argumentation%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1446260.1485397.0.1491934.48.45.0.0.0.0.309.6801.0j34j7j1.42.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.32.5475.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i13k1j0i13i30k1j33i21k1.0.NIPRd_QlZZ4" rel="nofollow"><b></b></a><br /><br /><b>Quote</b><br />There are four general types of evidence:<br />Real evidence (tangible things, such as a weapon)<br />Demonstrative (a model of what likely happened at a given time and place)<br />Documentary (a letter, blog post, or other document)<br />Testimonial (witness testimony)<br /><b>close Quote</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91438963311077796812018-03-21T12:48:46.179-07:002018-03-21T12:48:46.179-07:00What does communication have to do with the scenar...<i>What does communication have to do with the scenario I was using? I thought you were talking about communication to point out the problems of how one person can know what another is thinking. But that point is separate from my point.</i><br />- It's a peripheral issue, but we were talking about identical thoughts. I'm not sure that there is any such thing.<br /><br /><i>So "evidence" can consist of sensory perception, memory, testimony, reasoning, the last three of which can be propositional in nature. My point was that it's doubtful that the situation is as simple as you sketch. Take for instance a strand of hair on a murder victim. The bare sense perception tells you nothing. You have to apply many many inferences and types of background knowledge to turn it into evidence. A bare sense perception has to be integrated into a huge inferential web before it becomes "evidence."</i><br />- I disagree. Actually, the first three of your examples can be considered evidence, although memory is unreliable and can't be objectively verified. Reasoning does not fit the definition. As I said, I go by the definition. But you haven't given an alternative definition. You seem to be equating 'evidence' with 'reason to believe'. Those two terms are not equivalent. People have reasons to believe things that are not evidence. For example, you might believe a statement simply because you are emotionally attached to the person making the statement. That's not based on evidence.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49805967586671068092018-03-21T12:24:19.343-07:002018-03-21T12:24:19.343-07:00What does communication have to do with the scenar...What does communication have to do with the scenario I was using? I thought you were talking about communication to point out the problems of how one person can know what another is thinking. But that point is separate from my point.<br /><br />So "evidence" can consist of sensory perception, memory, testimony, reasoning, the last three of which can be propositional in nature. My point was that it's doubtful that the situation is as simple as you sketch. Take for instance a strand of hair on a murder victim. The bare sense perception tells you nothing. You have to apply many many inferences and types of background knowledge to turn it into evidence. A bare sense perception has to be integrated into a huge inferential web before it becomes "evidence."7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73504105365147648772018-03-20T14:28:41.848-07:002018-03-20T14:28:41.848-07:007th,
Hmm. We seem to have some disagreement on t...7th,<br /><br />Hmm. We seem to have some disagreement on the definition of terms. The way I see it, the question of how we communicate our ideas is not an issue of epistemology. My understanding of epistemology corresponds more to the dictionary definition, which is: <i>"the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion."</i> Communication is different from that.<br /><br />Likewise with evidence, which is defined as: <i>"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."</i> Notice here that a belief or proposition is not evidence, but the body of facts that support it is evidence. I am not questioning whether we should trust our senses to give us some kind of truth about reality. I did say you might do that, but it would be irrelevant to the concept of what constitutes evidence in any practical sense.<br /><br />I'm not trying to run down some philosophical rabbit-hole. If you want to do that, have at it. I prefer to devote my attention to the issues that matter in this world.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75227311972557603452018-03-20T13:35:12.385-07:002018-03-20T13:35:12.385-07:00Skep, you're talking about how we can know wha...Skep, you're talking about how we can know what someone else is thinking, the problematic nature of ever knowing for sure that we've communicated our thoughts successfully. That's epistemology. I was assuming that two people can have the same thought, that "Today is Tuesday" for instance, I wasn't talking about the problems involved in knowing that this is so.<br /><br />Evidence is something you believe. There's no neutral seeing of anything. We and many other species have built in ways of interpreting and making sense of our visual field and other kinds of stimuli. But these ways have to be activated through learnign and familiarity. That's why when a person blind from birth becomes sighted, they can't immediatley "see" anything but a chaos of visual stimulation. It takes time to impose meaning onto this field. All perception is shot trhough with inference. There's probably no, or extremely rare, "neutral given." Knowledge is belief of a certain kind. not all belief is knowledge. And again, this has nothing to do with theism.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-10435068178629419912018-03-20T13:05:55.639-07:002018-03-20T13:05:55.639-07:00I never said that reductionism of the mental ought...I never said that reductionism of the mental ought to be one's default position. I said I can see how physicalism is a reasonable default position given its successes in the past, barring compelling reasons to think otherwise, if that was what you were referring to. I wasn't assuming you were endorsing any position. My position has always been taht there are good reasons to think that consciousness is not a physical concept.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8597309965838676082018-03-19T14:57:20.717-07:002018-03-19T14:57:20.717-07:00Ryan M said...
I'm not going to reiterate anyt...Ryan M said...<br />I'm not going to reiterate anything I've asserted since I think I've been pretty clear, but I will note that I never said reductionism of the mental ought to be one's default position. Arguing that a specific argument for dualism fails is not itself an endorsement of reductionism or any position.<br /><br /><b>I agree, I wasn't arguing that,I don't know if the others were bit I wasn't,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25208285163296783632018-03-19T14:18:55.135-07:002018-03-19T14:18:55.135-07:00Yes, taht's how you would know about it. But y...<i>Yes, taht's how you would know about it. But you keep confusing epistemology with ontology and metaphysics. My point doesn't turn on epistemology.</i><br />- I wasn't talking about epistemology or ontology or metaphysics. It was about how we communicate out ideas. When we want to express a thought to someone else, we must put that thought into some symbolic form that can be transmitted to the other person. In the process of doing that we translate the thought words or symbols that approximate what we are thinking. The person receiving the communication must translate those words or symbols into a thought in his own mind. But his translation might not exactly match mine. Very often, the thing we intend to say is misunderstood. And even if it's not, it still may not exactly match what was intended. I might say "I see a cat", having in mind a tabby sitting on the window sill. When you hear that, you might think of an Angora laying on the rug. The more information I add to my statement, the closer your your conception of it will be, but they will never be exactly the same.<br /><br /><i>this is all ideological question-begging.</i><br />- You don't seem to get what I'm saying. (See the comment above.) Evidence is not something you believe - it is something you see (although you might question whether you are really seeing it). When you see some evidence, you make judgments about what it means. You may believe your own judgment, and disbelieve someone else'. You can formulate an argument for a particular interpretation of the evidence, but arguments do not change the objective fact of the evidence. This is not begging any question. It is simply a matter of definition. If you are a theist, and you are desperate to claim that there is evidence for what you believe, you might want to call arguments "evidence", but they're really not.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64874951255760621302018-03-19T13:42:12.268-07:002018-03-19T13:42:12.268-07:00I'm not going to reiterate anything I've a...I'm not going to reiterate anything I've asserted since I think I've been pretty clear, but I will note that I never said reductionism of the mental ought to be one's default position. Arguing that a specific argument for dualism fails is not itself an endorsement of reductionism or any position. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8944792646594075542018-03-19T13:20:55.089-07:002018-03-19T13:20:55.089-07:00Eric Sotnak said...
Joe Hinman wrote: "Physic...Eric Sotnak said...<br /><b>Joe Hinman wrote:</b> "Physicality itself does not entail lack of belief in God. My first incineration is to say what is sacrosanct about physiclaiem? why is it important to you to deny the spiruitual?"<br /><br /><b>Eric Sotnak</b>It isn't a matter of physicalism being sacrosanct. I'm open to the possibility that non-physical realities of some sort might exist. But physicalism has been really really successful as a methodological assumption in the sciences.<br /><br /><b>N it has't, most scientific discoveries have not been made under a paradigm of physicality. Those that have could have been made by researchers with a thoroughgoing SN belief as long as they had a healthy division of duties for magisteria.</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Eric Sotnak:</b> Show me compelling evidence for non-physical realities and give me a compelling account of how they should be integrated into the rest of science and I'm willing to listen.<br /><br /><b>Frist of all why must be scientific? Why is science ontology and metaphysics too?Why can't we have other kinds of knowledge that we view as valid that science just doesn't talk about? Science is left to determining the physical it should not have a commentary on the non physical.<br /><br />Secondly what's happened is science is only capable of examine the physical realm that is it's proper magisterium. But because the ideology asserts that physical is all there is the assumption is made that any discoveries in the physical is a bolstering of the ideological assumptions.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> But I also don't think there is enough reason, as yet, to place any confidence in the claim that physicalism is a doomed position, and that our only hope of ever getting satisfactory explanations of mental states (or anything else, for that matter) lies in abandoning physicalism.<br /><br /><b>If mind is non-physical it does. I thin the whole problem with physicilism is that physical is not nailed down as securely as those who support that view think it is. There are unclear sects to the notion of physical.</b><br /><br /><b>Eric Sotnak:</b> So to return to the original claim of your two posts (that there can be brainless minds): I have yet to see any compelling reasons for me to think that there are any mental states that have no physical basis at all.<br /><br /><b>The problem there is your talking about "mental states." I am talking about universal mind, (God) which would be the ground of all mid.So obviously there going to be different sets of expectations that would govern an understanding of each. In other words, humans have mental states, they don't have universal ind,God is aware of all mental states but being universal mind he is not subject to any of them.So obviously there's an explanatory gap there. You have to look for a different set of clues.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7638836371870625362018-03-19T11:25:04.246-07:002018-03-19T11:25:04.246-07:00It isn't a matter of physicalism being sacrosa...<i>It isn't a matter of physicalism being sacrosanct. I'm open to the possibility that non-physical realities of some sort might exist. But physicalism has been really really successful as a methodological assumption in the sciences. Show me compelling evidence for non-physical realities and give me a compelling account of how they should be integrated into the rest of science and I'm willing to listen. But I also don't think there is enough reason, as yet, to place any confidence in the claim that physicalism is a doomed position, and that our only hope of ever getting satisfactory explanations of mental states (or anything else, for that matter) lies in abandoning physicalism.</i><br /><br />I think it's reasonable to have physicalism as your default position given its successes so far, barring compelling reasons to not do so. So the debate is over how compelling, how insuperable, the reasons are. And so it rages on :)7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55302664384585109032018-03-19T11:14:06.675-07:002018-03-19T11:14:06.675-07:00- That's exactly what I said. And you have no ...- That's exactly what I said. And you have no way of knowing that two different people are having "identical" thoughts. The only way is to have then translate it into something that can be examined objectively. That's what the statement "2 + 2 = 4" is. two people can agree that they're both thinking of that statement, but you don't know that their actual mental process is the same.<br /><br />Yes, taht's how you would know about it. But you keep confusing epistemology with ontology and metaphysics. My point doesn't turn on epistemology.<br /><br />- You're wrong about that. Evidence is objective and factual. But the same evidence can be interpreted in different ways. Arguments are our way of rationalizing and interpreting the evidence. Arguments may be a reason for you to believe, but they are not evidence. Arguments are often faulty. You may believe an argument that is not logical, or not well reasoned. But evidence is simply objectively observable facts. <br /><br />this is all ideological question-begging. There 's no such thing as pure "evidence." We have sensory input that must be organized in terms of concepts and meaning. We have to interpret and impose meaning onto our sensory inputs. We have to apply logic and reason to what we perceive or else it's meaningless noise. Of course you may believe an argument that's wrong just as you may believe "evidence" (as you're using that term) that ultimately proves to be wrong. All of science, along with all of knowledge, is revisable so we all could be wrong about vast chunks of what we assume is right. To think taht there's this solid unimpeachable thing called 'evidence" taht only science can provide is incredibly naive. You're a very bright guy but I think you're in the grip of an ideology. 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49393309322383347162018-03-19T11:01:29.059-07:002018-03-19T11:01:29.059-07:00My point was the following; the fact that some con...<i>My point was the following; the fact that some concept A and some concept B can be spoken of as different concepts does not logically imply that A and B are different.]<br /><br />As I attempted to point out, we can speak of mind as distinct from matter, but this does not logically imply mind and matter are in fact distinct. This is not to say mind and matter are identical, but that the argument fails that our language sometimes treats them as distinct logically implies they are distinct. <br /><br />The argument that there is no analytic implication is a rather bad one since analytic implications are sometimes missed due to lack of information. For example, that a tomato is a fruit is analytically implied by the definition of a tomato, but to the average person it can be missed that tomatoes contain all the properties sufficient for fruithood. If the concept of a mind does not imply matter, then we need to know everything relevant about the concept of a mind. Obviously physicalists will reject we know everything relevant to answer this, and the language argument doesn't help.</i><br /><br />I agree with you that "different concepts" doesn't entail "different things." I think the point though is that showing not just how they are the same thing but how they could conceivably be the same thing has proved to be a more stubborn problem than previously thought. <br /><br />Maybe this is an argument from ignorance, but I think Kripke and Nagel argue that there may be a necessary though non-conceptual link between mind and matter but that it's more likely than not that our current physical concepts will not get us there. It's hard if not impossible to imagine what position in conceptual space future empirical finding about the brain would need to be filled in to establish this necessary link. Maybe as Dennett says, this is merely a failure of imagination. But my question is, what stronger reasons could there possibly be to justify thinking it's likely that our current concepts won't get us there? 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44667869535300742672018-03-19T02:07:32.944-07:002018-03-19T02:07:32.944-07:00Ryan M said...
I guess what I was saying was simpl...Ryan M said...<br />I guess what I was saying was simply never understood. <br /><br />My point was the following; the fact that some concept A and some concept B can be spoken of as different concepts does not logically imply that A and B are different.<br /><br /><b>Well sure but that would depend upon the particulars of each. We don't have time to present a full dissertation in this text box so we make short-hand references to differences assuming background knowledge on the part of the reader. You will agree wont you that the position of the NRA on gun control is different from that of President Obama? It's not just a matte of semantics.</b><br /><br />As I attempted to point out, we can speak of mind as distinct from matter, but this does not logically imply mind and matter are in fact distinct. This is not to say mind and matter are identical, but that the argument fails that our language sometimes treats them as distinct logically implies they are distinct. <br /><br /><b>Mind and matter clearly distinct in some ways No doubt, matter is <i>en soir</i>while mind is <i>por soir.</i> <br />Mind and matter might be totally idempotent or mind might be a product of matter either way they are not synonymous or identical. </b><br /><br />The argument that there is no analytic implication is a rather bad one since analytic implications are sometimes missed due to lack of information. For example, that a tomato is a fruit is analytically implied by the definition of a tomato, but to the average person it can be missed that tomatoes contain all the properties sufficient for fruithood. <br /><br /><b>you have not justified the contention that in the face of a dearth of evidence or data we should make assumptions biased toward reduction. Moreover, I think we do have the data to justify the opposite assumption (<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/03/mind-is-not-reduceabel-to-brain-part-1.html" rel="nofollow"><b>see my post over this coming week</b></a>).</b><br /><br /><br />If the concept of a mind does not imply matter, then we need to know everything relevant about the concept of a mind.<br /><br /><b>I don't see how that follows. You speak as though mind is a radical new idea that is seeking recognition. In fact mind as irremediable to brain (matter) is the assumption of status quo thus the reductionist must prove his/her thesis.</b><br /><br /><br /> Obviously physicalists will reject we know everything relevant to answer this, and the language argument doesn't help.<br /><br /><b>I think we probably disagree about what exactly needs solving. Asserting that we must solve the logical links between language, thought, and matter or mind in order to assert that mind does not reduce to matter is based upon that assumption that mind is some radical new idea. After all there are many things we don't know and that lack of understanding does not prevent reductionist from seeking to ply their trade. For example we don't really know what the basis of the physical is, We do not know that physical is the only mode of being.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com