[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
You said
"the origin of [GOF Physicalism] is a consequence of the Munchhausen 
fallacy"

What ? Where do you get that ? (Totally irrelevant to our debate, just
another new side issue I believe, but what ?) Haven't we already
agreed that no metaphysics can provide a hole-free fundamental basis
for its own bootstraps, only a "working basis" on which the rest of it
is coherent ?

(BTW - the origin of "bananaism" was my e-mail, you are bringing your
physicalist baggage to bananaism.)

Scott:
Let me remind you that you asked:

[Ian said in previous post]
"Why, oh why, does that mean we must "abandon"
bananaism ? Surely it means we must evolve bananism to include a
"better" interpretation of spacetime (or whatever) - since banana is
(by definition) the best model of reality."

You are really confusing things here. You say that "banana" is "(by 
definition) the best model of reality". Then you ask why I think we should 
abandon it. Well, if by definition "banana" is the best model of reality, 
then of course it shouldn't be abandoned. But what is it? Is it 
Christianity, as a Christian would think?. Is it S/O dualism, as Descartes 
thought? Well, obviously you don't think those are the best model of 
reality, and neither do I. So how am I supposed to answer your question? You 
say "Surely we must evolve bananism to include a "better" interpretation of 
spacetime". Well, how am I supposed to know *what* is being evolved, if 
bananism could be Christianity or Cartesianism, etc.? Obviously, then, what 
I must take you to mean is that what you see as the (current) best model of 
reality is what should be evolved. This of course contradicts that "banana" 
is *by definition* the best model of reality, but how else could I respond 
to your question?

So, if I assume that "bananism" is physicalism that has evolved in certain 
ways (e.g., eschewing reductionism, being influenced by QM, thinking of 
physical processes as information processing, adding Quality, considering 
Strange Loops, etc.), then I can answer the question. Which I did. I do not 
think it can evolve. I think it needs to be abandoned. A major part of why 
think it needs to be abandoned is because it arose under the influence of 
the Munchhausen fallacy, which is "where I got that".

You think it is totally irrelevant to our debate, but since it is a major 
part of my answer to your question of "why should bananism be abandoned", it 
obviously is relevant.

[Scott] said
I didn't think we had moved on. Weren't we disagreeing on whether
Occam applies to our disagreement? On how what is pragmatic depends on
one's agenda? On how the importance of a hole also depends on one's
agenda?

Ian said:
Exactly - that's what I said - you appeared to suggest "economy of
explanation of the hole in one's metaphysics" was not an issue. (Then
changed the subject several times.) Stick with just that for 5 or 6
mails please.

Scott:
I didn't say that it was not an issue. I said that you were framing the 
issue of holes in one's metaphysics in a different way that I would frame 
it. And that is the problem here. You have implicit assumptions in your 
questions and comments which I do not share. When I try to point these out 
you accuse me of changing the subject. What I don't share with you in this 
case is that the holes in question are explanatory. That is because, in 
abandoning physicalism, the idea that something we don't know should be 
considered as something that needs explaining is no longer a given.


Ian said:
(ie Stop telling me I have problems with mystical or religious
metaphors - I don't, OK - you just assume it. Science is full of 'em,
science is one of 'em, etc.)

Scott:
How was I supposed to react when, after introducing the "salvation" 
metaphor, your response was " 'Nuff said. Now we know your real aims. such a 
pity"?

Ian said [in separate email]:

Our agendas may both be "better knowledge" (enlightenment, awakeing,
salvation) - but your agenda involves one of us giving up his view,
mine involves accomodating both.

Abandon - I think you said.
You're still going for a knockdown.

Scott:
You may think they can be accommodated, but I don't think they can. The 
situation is that certain arguments knocked out physicalism *for me*. Those 
arguments have not knocked out physicalism *for you*. You think that 
physicalism can evolve to accommodate my arguments. I see those arguments as 
calling for starting over with semiosis/intellect/consciousness/value rather 
than physics/value. Unless (which I doubt will happen) one of us can 
convince the other that those arguments should or should not be a knockdown, 
we have separate agendas. You will call for evolution, I will call for 
revolution. You will seek explanations. I will question "explanation". What 
you consider pragmatic I do not. In sum, what you see as me changing the 
subject, I see as trying to avoid being forced to play by your rules.

Since you found no knockdown in my arguments, I don't expect you to give up 
your view. I am only trying to tell you why I have given up on your view.

- Scott