It’s strange; I didn’t really pay much attention to psychology classes back in college and even thought its all BS except maybe Emmanuel Kant’s stuff. Now that I’m older, I find this subject fascinating and downright awesome. I’m thinking of taking those once-a-week class on general philosophy just to see and meet like-minded folks.
@Daitaka: That’s awesome you have a favorite philosopher man. Good stuff. I’m a fan of Socrates. Although some of his discussion on virtues(its origins etc) can be very hard to follow, its fascinating stuff. I’ve also read Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ and man, does that dude has the blue print for a perfect dictator. Psycho crussshhhaaa! lol
I wasn’t even going to go to a soul actually.
But how about this. What about ideas? What about when you visualize something? Is that physical? Do you really think tracing all the neurons or whatever goes on in a human beings brain shown in a MRI or CAT scan is equivalent to a powerful image you see in your mind?
You can make a symbol or object in your mind physical, but it originates in a non-physical state. And yes, you take inspiration from the physical, but there isn’t just one way to mash together a symbol. It’s not like your thoughts are just coming out of your head onto the table like Minerva out of Saturn’s skull.
While the thinking process is greatly a product of the physical and physical reactions, it is not entirely physical.
^^^ For proof that magic exists and has a very real effect upon the world, look at all the ideas that can be stripped of semantic baggage, packed, and transmitted in a simple sigil.
Yes, it is.
It is an electro-chemical interaction.
Much as anything else, in this “life”.
Your argument for seeing what is in another person’s mind leaves Nagel’s bat not lukewarm.
Your thoughts are physical states.
They happen to be ones that no one else can apprehend for lacking your physical state - both in composition, and in position, relative to the the rest of the physical world re: the world.
Exactly Havatchu! That original ‘idea’ has to have come from somewhere. I highly doubt a CAT scan can pinpoint and say neuron X,Y,Z generated this person’s original idea or that. That’s what Socrates discusses a lot; the nature/origin of the different ‘virtues’. For example where does the idea of ‘holiness’, not in a religious sense, but in a moral pov comes from? Are we born with the notion of what is good? Socrates believe there are eternal truths that every human possess the moment they start existing. His best work on virtue is on the ‘Meno’ dialogue imo. Excellent short read.
Socrates was wrong.
Aristotle was pretty close.
“Merely” is one of those naughty little words designed to shore up a primarily physical worldview by reducing the significance of ideas, emotions, etc. beyond their manifestations as “mere” biological phenomena.
Whatever.
Omit the word from the sentence.
It still stands.
We attained to science through philosophy.
It stands as an explanation for how it works at the physical level. You can insist on viewing everything in those terms if you want, but sooner or later, you may find the explanatory power of this approach dissatisfying and not particularly useful vis a vis what ideas do and how they affect the world.
I’m not insisting on anything.
I’m taking things for what they are.
Reality shaved with Occam’s razor tends towards suffering from a distinct lack of duality.
Suffering being a facetious term.
I’ve studied quite broadly, actually, g00dy.
The only soul, per se, is the Aristotelian one i.e. the sum total of our being - all of it actual, all of it physical, none of it permanent, none of it transcendental.
*eagerly awaits an Epiphenominologist entering the fray.
I’m not proposing that there is an alternative explanation for empirical phenomena. I’m proposing that empiricism is a way of couching things that is useful in some situations but not in others.
I also caution that Occam’s Razor is a tool. As such, it is useful only for jobs that require such a tool. People who ascribe too much power to it might be tempted to conclude that if they can’t explain the importance of something in simple empirical terms, then that thing must not be important.
Such people would be foolish.
We are not dealing with simple empirical things in this particular discussion.
Rather, we are dealing with empirical things.
Simplicity is a fundamental feature of Occam’s Razor.
Just so you know I’m not misquoting you, it’s just that I’m conceding the points you made that I’m not quoting.
You actually have a good point with this one. At first I read that sentence and just thought, whatever.
On second reading I get the point.
But when I think of thought, (can’t believe I just thought/said/typed that) I think of motivation more than internal dialogue in terms of thoughts being a physical state, because your feelings and motivations obviously make you do actions more than interal dialogue would, well, shit, now I’m only speaking for myself…damn.
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
You saying those people are foolish is just your justification of your opinion. It’s not a reason, it’s just your feelings on the matter. It’s a classic logical fallacy called an ad hominem attrack. http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Ad Hominem
I do agree with your statement on Aristotle and the soul, though.
Nay.
Omitting the superfluous is a fundamental feature of Occam’s Razor.
Sometimes the simplest reduced form of something is rather complex.
The term foolish was in reference to g00dy’s supposition of “people who ascribe too much power to Occam’s Razor.”
It follows implicitly from the qualifier he chose - “too much” - that they are foolish, at best.
Please do not argue semantics instead of the greater argument.
And, on a related note, please do refrain from speaking of fallacies as if you were dealing with plebs. Most of the people who engage in discourse such as this on SRK, are fairly well educated.
Thank you.
Define “superfluous” as it pertains to making sense out of, achieving illumination as to, and otherwise understanding oneself and the time, place, and circumstances in which one lives.
Adding a layer on top of that which is necessary to achieve said illumination.
So define necessary.
o_O
That which is required.
e.g. two hydrogen atoms plus one oxygen atom at a temperature > 0 Celsius, and < than 100 Celsius, for water.
You are being boorish.
You understand my point.
Stop looking for a way to come out on top.
It ill becomes you.