Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

James Ross and immaterial aspects of thought

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 6:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey guys,

So I'm trying to read James Ross' argument about the immaterial aspects of thought...

http://www3.nd.edu...

I've heard that the argument can be summed up (in a very basic way):

P1: All formal thinking is determinate.
P2: No physical process is determinate.
.'. No physical process is formal thinking.
(Logically valid Camstres categorical syllogism)

And by conversion... "No physical process is formal thinking" --> "No formal thinking is a physical process."

Is anyone familiar with this argument? Ross seems very difficult to read, so can anybody refer me to places where it's explained more basically? Or does anyone understand the argument well enough to present it here?

Thanks
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 9:53:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 6:51:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ed Feser has written a lot on it.

Great! Waiting for Philosophy of Mind to arrive...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:01:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 9:53:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 6:51:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ed Feser has written a lot on it.

Great! Waiting for Philosophy of Mind to arrive...

Have you read these blog posts yet?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:04:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 10:01:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:53:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 6:51:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ed Feser has written a lot on it.

Great! Waiting for Philosophy of Mind to arrive...

Have you read these blog posts yet?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Yes, some of them, but I'm relatively new to the area of philosophy of mind, so the terminology and everything is a little confusing at the moment... Perhaps Ross isn't the best to start with.

Out of curiosity, PCP, what type of dualist would you consider yourself? Because Feser and Oderberg always seem to advocate a type of hylemorphic dualism, much different than traditional Cartestian dualism.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:18:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 10:04:44 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 10:01:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:53:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 6:51:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ed Feser has written a lot on it.

Great! Waiting for Philosophy of Mind to arrive...

Have you read these blog posts yet?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Yes, some of them, but I'm relatively new to the area of philosophy of mind, so the terminology and everything is a little confusing at the moment... Perhaps Ross isn't the best to start with.

Out of curiosity, PCP, what type of dualist would you consider yourself? Because Feser and Oderberg always seem to advocate a type of hylemorphic dualism, much different than traditional Cartestian dualism.

I am an emergent dualist of the kind advocated by William Hasker and Dean Zimmerman. I rather like Zimmerman's arguments for dualism, I think they are really strong. Hasker has written countless - and I really DO mean countless articles - on the subject. His book "The Emergent Self" is great.

"While emergent dualism shares with (nonreductive) materialism the claim that ordinary matter contains within itself the potentiality for consciousness, it actually goes some way beyond materialism in the powers it attributes to matter. For standard materialism, the closure of the physical guarantees that consciousness does not "make a difference" to the way matter itself operates; all of the brain-processes are given a mechanistic explanation which would be just the same whether or not the processes were accompanied by conscious experience.
Teleonomic is preferable to teleological, which implies a purpose before existence
Emergent dualism, on the other hand recognizes that a great many mental processes are irreducibly teleological, and cannot be explained by or supervenient upon brain processes that have a complete mechanistic explanation. So the power attributed to matter by emergent dualism amounts to this: when suitably configured, it generates a field of consciousness that is able to function teleologicaliy and to exercise libertarian free will, and the field of consciousness in turn modifies and directs the functioning of the physical brain. At this point, it must be admitted, the tension between the apparently mechanistic character of the physical basis of mind and the irreducibly teleological nature of the mind itself becomes pretty severe, and the siren song of Cartesian dualism once again echoes in our ears. "

http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

I would suggest this short paper for more info on it:

www.lastseminary.com/dualism/Emergent%20Dualism.pdf
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 10:22:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 10:18:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2013 10:04:44 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 10:01:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/18/2013 9:53:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 6:51:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Ed Feser has written a lot on it.

Great! Waiting for Philosophy of Mind to arrive...

Have you read these blog posts yet?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Yes, some of them, but I'm relatively new to the area of philosophy of mind, so the terminology and everything is a little confusing at the moment... Perhaps Ross isn't the best to start with.

Out of curiosity, PCP, what type of dualist would you consider yourself? Because Feser and Oderberg always seem to advocate a type of hylemorphic dualism, much different than traditional Cartestian dualism.

I am an emergent dualist of the kind advocated by William Hasker and Dean Zimmerman. I rather like Zimmerman's arguments for dualism, I think they are really strong. Hasker has written countless - and I really DO mean countless articles - on the subject. His book "The Emergent Self" is great.

"While emergent dualism shares with (nonreductive) materialism the claim that ordinary matter contains within itself the potentiality for consciousness, it actually goes some way beyond materialism in the powers it attributes to matter. For standard materialism, the closure of the physical guarantees that consciousness does not "make a difference" to the way matter itself operates; all of the brain-processes are given a mechanistic explanation which would be just the same whether or not the processes were accompanied by conscious experience.
Teleonomic is preferable to teleological, which implies a purpose before existence
Emergent dualism, on the other hand recognizes that a great many mental processes are irreducibly teleological, and cannot be explained by or supervenient upon brain processes that have a complete mechanistic explanation. So the power attributed to matter by emergent dualism amounts to this: when suitably configured, it generates a field of consciousness that is able to function teleologicaliy and to exercise libertarian free will, and the field of consciousness in turn modifies and directs the functioning of the physical brain. At this point, it must be admitted, the tension between the apparently mechanistic character of the physical basis of mind and the irreducibly teleological nature of the mind itself becomes pretty severe, and the siren song of Cartesian dualism once again echoes in our ears. "

http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

I would suggest this short paper for more info on it:

www.lastseminary.com/dualism/Emergent%20Dualism.pdf

Fascinating.. I'll have to look into that. I don't as of yet have a particularly strong stance on any version of dualism yet, so I appreciate the links!
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."