Page 1 of 13

we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:58 pm
by Metacrock
Man I don't know what to say.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:53 pm
by mdsimpson92
Anyone want to try something on substance material. We haven't dealt with that for a while. Personally speaking I lean somewhere between dual-aspect and neutral monism. I've always been a bit of a spinozist metaphysically.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:12 am
by Metacrock
mdsimpson92 wrote:Anyone want to try something on substance material. We haven't dealt with that for a while. Personally speaking I lean somewhere between dual-aspect and neutral monism. I've always been a bit of a spinozist metaphysically.
I really don't know much about that. can you define the terms? the first two I mean. If you want to define the Spinoza too I wont stop you.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:00 pm
by mdsimpson92
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

eutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:00 pm
by mdsimpson92
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

eutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:45 am
by Metacrock
mdsimpson92 wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

eutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two.
but what does that leave? what is it? Does it posit an unknown?

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:47 am
by Metacrock
Interesting point. Reductionism is also a monism. It's a materialistic monism. why are modern people fascinated with monism? dualism is a dirty word.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:41 pm
by mdsimpson92
Metacrock wrote:Interesting point. Reductionism is also a monism. It's a materialistic monism. why are modern people fascinated with monism? dualism is a dirty word.
That and the issue between how those two could interact if they are two separate "substances." That is what lead to dual aspect monism in which there is one substance that has at least two aspects that can be regarded as material and mental.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:51 am
by Metacrock
mdsimpson92 wrote:
Metacrock wrote:Interesting point. Reductionism is also a monism. It's a materialistic monism. why are modern people fascinated with monism? dualism is a dirty word.
That and the issue between how those two could interact if they are two separate "substances." That is what lead to dual aspect monism in which there is one substance that has at least two aspects that can be regarded as material and mental.
Yes but I guess the dualism collapses on itself. It seems like mental and physical are valid dualism but really the physical collapses to a product of the mental.

the materialist take on consciousness does it backwards. Physical collapses into the mental because we access the physical through the mental. They try to collapse the mental into the physical by making it a side effect of the physical, an abortion, a product of brain chemistry it's just an illusion of the physical. That doesn't work becasue they answers so many things, like the hard problem.

I think what's really happening is the medication issue wont allow the physical to predominate becasue our perceptions of the physical have to be mediated by the mental.

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:11 am
by mdsimpson92
Metacrock wrote: Yes but I guess the dualism collapses on itself. It seems like mental and physical are valid dualism but really the physical collapses to a product of the mental.

the materialist take on consciousness does it backwards. Physical collapses into the mental because we access the physical through the mental. They try to collapse the mental into the physical by making it a side effect of the physical, an abortion, a product of brain chemistry it's just an illusion of the physical. That doesn't work becasue they answers so many things, like the hard problem.

I think what's really happening is the medication issue wont allow the physical to predominate becasue our perceptions of the physical have to be mediated by the mental.
Which is why I prefer something closer to dual aspect theory. The inherent problem with that is describing what the hell the substance is anyways.

On a positive note, both neutral and dual-aspect monism plays better into proto-panpsychism, which has fairly interesting issues by itself. Though as I mentioned before with a different article, physicalism practically requires panpsychism for it to work in describing the mental.