well, Krimel , i have been reading the posting of you , regarding the DMB/ Steve interaction. To be quit honest, i can see nothing wrong with the questions made by Steve,nor with the answers provided by Dave. Strange , Krimel , as i'm reading the other posts too, in the past , i have to say i'll stick with my opinion that you , Krimel , most of the time, are good , sharp , clever , educated, interested and interesting , ......but not this time. This line of presenting your dish will sharpen nobody's hunger.....for more.
This displays a lesser moment , Krimel. Greetzz, Adrie 2010/8/20 Krimel <[email protected]> > [Krimel] > Thanks for this grab bag of illustrations. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #1: The one size fits all explanation... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [Steve asks dmb a question > ... I have a real question for you? "What about consciousness?" ... "the > problem of consciousness" ... RMP's approach just sweeps it under the rug. > > [dmb responds:] > Not sure you've asked an actual question here. What is the problem of > consciousness, exactly? What's being swept under the rug by RMP's approach? > > But let me remind you that James' Essays in Radical Empiricism... > > [Krimel] > There it is. The answer to every question. The wielding of the only tool in > Dave's tool box. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #2: The steel trap mind slamming shut... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > As you're reading Chalmers ask yourself if he's operating with the > subject-object metaphysical assumptions. Do you think you could spot such a > thing? It'll probably mean reading between the lines just because > assumptions are like that. They tend to go without saying. If anyone is > likely to be explicit about such a thing, it'll be a philosopher. But > still. > > > [Krimel] > It is hard to see how anyone interested in the idea of consciousness could > ignore or dismiss Chalmers but for dmb it's not a problem. Rather than > engage the issues raise he slaps on the label: SOM and "Presto" no need to > read, no need to engage the issue, time to just sit back and feel self > righteous. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #3: Appeal to authorities then embarrass them... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > By the time James was all pumped up about radical empiricism in 1904 and > 1905, a period of explosive creativity for James, he was also very excited > about a philosophical wild man named Gustav Fechner. > > [Krimel] > Here we see dmb's sense of history mangled. James talks extensively about > Fechner in his Principles of Psychology because Fechner was among the first > and best at trying to quantify the senses. James got "all pumped up" to > write and introduction to Fechner's pamphlet "The Little Book of Life After > Death" originally published in 1836 under a pseudonym. I think it would be > difficult to find thinkers from the 19th century able to divorce themselves > from animistic, spiritualist thinking. Surely at a century and a half's > remove we ought to be able to forgive them. But dmb instead prefers to cite > them as justification for a continuing adherence to these quaint > misconceptions. > > Holding Fechner and James up as giving authority to animism and > spiritualism > does them both a disservice. It assumes that those positions are unaffected > by a century of research and discourse. More knowledge of the physiology, > cause and effects, and abstract metaphysical thinking on and about the > brain > and consciousness have take place in the past 25 years that in the whole > span of history leading up to Fechner and James' time. It insults them both > to think that their idea are unaffected by this progress. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #4: Letting the bathwater leak in through the backdoor... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > This isn't too far from the MOQish notion that the laws of physics are > better conceived as patterns of preference. Even the physical is inwardly > alive and consciously animated to some extent. The "its" count as one of > the > spans and wavelengths in this living universe. > > [Krimel] > Rather than altering our notions of "preference" to include a probabilistic > view of causality; dmb sees Pirsig retreating into this kind of spiritual > animism. > > It has is an ongoing mystery how one can make a claim for a universe that > is > "...inwardly alive and consciously animated" and yet deny that one's > position is not supernatural, even theistic. I'm not even sure that stuff > qualities as bathwater. After you stuff a towel under the back drop why > don't you try shaking the handle? > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #5: The bumper sticker grab bag... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > You see what these guys are saying? > > If you're a scientific materialist and you hear James explain that > consciousness as an entity, as a Cartesian self, does not exists, you're > likely to take James as being somewhere in the brain-mind identity camp. > > [Krimel] > No need to engage a different point of view when you can cover your lack of > breadth and depth with slogans and strawmen. Since dmb engagement with > intellectual activity is stunted in the 19th century, the materialist > strawman is a Newtonian projection. Although it went up in flames at least > by the middle of the 20th century it lives for dmb as a kind of fantasy > whipping boy. > > Note also the second example of the bumper sticker approach: "brain-mind > identity camp" as though in this label we find a clearly defined group of > the slack jawed, oblivious to dmb's keen and exhaustive insights. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustation #6: Spinning to blur distinctions... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > You'd think there is no such thing as consciousness per se because the mind > is just what the brain does, more or less. Most people in this camp will > back off just a bit and make some qualification, but that's the basic idea. > But when you read this Fechner-inspired stuff you realize that James had a > whole different deal in mind. Instead of thinking that the mental is a > product of the physiological, which is a product of the physical, you see > that it's more like the physical and the mental have grown up and evolved > together as two aspects of the One. In fact, James's biographer, Robert > Richardson, says the quote above is the best statement about the many and > the One that James ever produced (page 447). > > [Krimel] > Here again we see the strawmen but some are willing to "back off" if "just > a > bit" no doubt intimidated by the imagined power of dmb's keen observations. > Unfortunately dmb offers no actual attack on this position just a > perfunctory dismissal and retreat into the 19th century. After all, if one > were to venture into the 21st century it would be really hard to muster > enough strawmen on this subject to matter. > > "The mind is what the brain does..." of course it is and mostly"more" > rather > than "less". The "mind," whatever that is supposed to be, is the outcome of > the process of the nervous system's engagement with the environment. It > takes the sensory input Fechner so painstaking detailed and converts it > into > thought and action. If "consciousness" is a process then the brain is the > processor. It is the dismissal of this notion that demands some kind of > sustained defense in the 21st century. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration # 1 redeux: The short form... > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > Now think about that pithy little radically empirical slogan. Experience > and > reality amount to the same thing. > > [Krimel] > Bullshit lite: Less tedium but still impossible to swallow. > > It might actually be meaningful to say "Experience and one's conception of > reality amount to the same thing." > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Illustration #7: The clever signoff or "The Illusion of Cool..." > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [dmb] > Hmmmm. Consciousness. Maybe I'll give it some thought. > > What was the question? Can you state it very specifically? > > [Krimel] > I picture him saying this while polishing his Foster Grant wraparounds > simultaneously grinding a Marlboro filter beneath his Chuck Taylors; > Bohemian ironic affections trapping him in the amber of the 50s. Refusing > the new millennium and feeling really good about it after all color TV is > just a fad. > > Thanks Dave, a truly enlightening post. > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
