Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: Nagel's Batty Explanation of the Mind-Body Problem

  1. Top | #71
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,532
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,745
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Which one will tell you how humans behaved prior to centuries of cultural evolution?

    It is speculation but merely saying it is speculation is not meaningful.
    It is a speculation guided by archeology, biology, psychology, physics, chemistry , etc.

    Currently those interested in evolution of social behavior follow several routes. We study various extant civilizations, histories of civilizations, evolution via model (fruit fly), by lineage (begats and similarity comparisons), by type (social behavior of mice, ants, bees, apes, etc) through anthropology, archeology, and climates among other factors, und so weiter.

    We take findings from the above and compare with data from these other fields to create models and extant examples.

    So there is speculation. But because overlaps and parallels there are convergences to what must have taken place and how it did so which becomes better with more information and increase in knowledge from all of those fields.

    Now do you think you could create or imagine how such scientific experimentation and speculation comes closer and closer to being a theory until there is an experiment that settles this or that notion.

    It is so much better than rational processes, these empirical processes. Every one guided by objective data.

  2. Top | #72
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,755
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,308
    Rep Power
    81
    You can't have any kind of empirical study without a rational framework to guide it.

    Studies do not give us anything.

    We can draw rational conclusions from them if they are set up rationally.

    The rational processes are paramount in all acquisition of knowledge and disparaged by the ignorant fool.

  3. Top | #73
    Veteran Member none's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,730
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Bonobos?
    what ever is convenient, just don't receive.

  4. Top | #74
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,755
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,308
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Bonobos?
    what ever is convenient, just don't receive.
    I heard you the first ten times you gave this worthless opinion without anything else besides your worthless opinion.

  5. Top | #75
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,532
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,745
    Rep Power
    64
    It's a reductionist objective empirical framework. Rational is something for Elitists and the Political at tea.

  6. Top | #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    117
    Archived
    2,221
    Total Posts
    2,338
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    In 1974, Philosopher Thomas Nagel published his classic 17-page explanation of why it is so difficult to understand the physical basis of consciousness: What is it Like to Be a Bat?

    .....


    The answer to the mind-body problem is grounded in the nature of experience. Brains have experiences, but what is an experience from a physical perspective? That's all I want to say for now--to point people at Nagel's explanation, if they have not already read this seminal paper. I will give my thoughts later on the way to think about the objective side of subjective experience.
    My view of Nagel's paper is not as positive as yours. A good critique of it can be found HERE.

    Nagel seems to accept the Cartesian conception of the mind. I think an Aristotelian/Wittgensteinian conception is more sensible. The Aristotelian conception does not identify the mind with the brain nor does it take consciousness to be a mark of the mental. After all, there are many animals that are conscious but don't have a mind. It is only humans with an array of intellectual powers and the capacity to act for reasons that can be said to have a mind. Nor is the mind a thing that interacts with the body.

    Nor do I agree with the view that 'brains have experiences'. It is human beings that have experiences. The brain is not an agent. It is the human being that is an agent that interacts with and experiences the world in which we live.

    Not sure you are still reading this thread. It seems to have gone off the rails.. Anyways, if you are interested, I would be happy to exchange and clarify our differing views on this.

  7. Top | #77
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,755
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,308
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    It's a reductionist objective empirical framework. Rational is something for Elitists and the Political at tea.
    Who made it objective?

  8. Top | #78
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,532
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,745
    Rep Power
    64
    The body of objective data made possible by using empirical methods. At this point those finding principles are standing on the shoulders of giants and the accumulated technology and information they produced.

    The same can't be said for philosophy.

  9. Top | #79
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,755
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,308
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    The body of objective data made possible by using empirical methods. At this point those finding principles are standing on the shoulders of giants and the accumulated technology and information they produced.

    The same can't be said for philosophy.
    The very idea of objective and the idea of objective data are philosophical ideas.

    But no interpretation of any data by humans is objective.

    Humans agreeing on things do not make them objective.

  10. Top | #80
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,532
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,745
    Rep Power
    64
    I'm not talking about the idea of objective data. I'm talking about the application of objective methods to produce objective results about how those things produced the subjective experience. Completely different thing from what you keep attempting to divert toward. We don't do subjective analyses on subjective experience.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •