--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > > wrote: > > (snip) > > > I'm much more interested in whether the materialists are > > > content that they have successfully seen off the incursion. > > > Maybe - like we were with the so called "intelligent design" > > > BS - they react strongly to the ignorance of the argument > > > to slap it down straight away lest tubthumpers use it as an > > > excuse. > > > > Doubt it, at least with regard to the "ignorance of the > > argument." Nagel is a *very* highly respected senior > > philosopher, not some dork from the Discovery Institute. > > (He's the author of the celebrated essay "What Is It > > Like to Be a Bat?" of which I'm sure you've heard.) > > I hope that's not an argument from authority, probably > the least convincing way of winning an argument. All > of the ID crowd were "highly respected" PHDs, just not > any more, chortle.
Of COURSE it's not an "argument from authority." Jeez, it's hard to keep you on track. My point is that while Nagel's argument may be *wrong*, it's unlikely to be *ignorant*, as you had just got done speculating. You obviously didn't know of Nagel's stature, so I was telling you. He's a superstar in the field of philosophy, not just a "highly respected PhD." It's one of the reasons the big guns of materialist philosophy have come out in force against his book. (snip) > > > But it isn't all explained by any means, I get sceptical because > > > the method of explanation used so far (materialist science) has > > > done a pretty damn good job so far. > > > > Well, if you don't analyze the explanation philosophically > > to see whether it's logically coherent, it may seem like it > > does a good job. > > Why the use of the term philosophically? Because the analysis is philosophical. (duh) > Scientifically does the job just as well as it also stands > and falls on how coherent - and more importantly - testable > it is. Not currently testable. And to the extent that scientific explanations in the areas of mind and consciousness are coherent, it's because they're logically sound. To say that mind and brain are identical, for example, is just not coherent, but the reasons it isn't are of a philosophical nature. Scientists don't tend to be schooled in scientific philosophy. In most areas that doesn't matter, but it very much does in this case. (snip) > > And as I said, Nagel's suggestion as to an alternative > > mechanism is tentative and incompletely developed. It's > > just one possible way to approach the problem. The much > > more important aspect of the book has to do with the > > explanatory gap. There's no point talking about > > alternative mechanisms until you see why neo-Darwinism > > doesn't--can't--fill the gap; otherwise you can't tell > > what might be successful in filling it. > > Well, as I say most of these "gaps" turn out to be the result > of inadequate research. Right. But not this one. It may turn out to be bridgeable, but not on the basis of more research. > I suppose I can manage 128 pages to satisfy > my curiosity. If it's in the library... I'm not expecting you to be impressed, BTW. ;-)
