Comments on: Philosophers' Zombies and Jackson's Mary http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2002/12/30/philosophers-zombies-and-jacksons-mary/ a sporadic weblog Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:03:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: alex http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2002/12/30/philosophers-zombies-and-jacksons-mary/comment-page-1/#comment-30 alex Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=221#comment-30 intuitively i dislike materialism. it somehow seems too crude, too simple. it seems to reduce everything to objects. additionally it doesn't really solve any problem. "that we are nothing more than matter that has learned to think for itself " does not answer the much more interesting question how this giant leap could happen. materialism presumes that there is matter which is not clear at all. i used to flirt with the idealist(ic?) idea that the world only exists in our perception of it. but in any case i have given up on philosophy long ago. i think the only philosophy worth spending one's time on is a philosophy which has practical consequences. like kant's categorical imperative for example. anything which tries to explain the world with one concept be it dualism, materialism, idealism or what ever -ism to me seems vain. all those -isms are just different perspectives. none of them is totally right and none of them is totally false. right now my "philosophical stance" would be a modification of socrate's famous words on knowledge. i'd say i don't know that i know nothing. i know less than socrate. intuitively i dislike materialism. it somehow seems too crude, too simple. it seems to reduce everything to objects. additionally it doesn't really solve any problem. "that we are nothing more than matter that has learned to think for itself " does not answer the much more interesting question how this giant leap could happen. materialism presumes that there is matter which is not clear at all. i used to flirt with the idealist(ic?) idea that the world only exists in our perception of it. but in any case i have given up on philosophy long ago. i think the only philosophy worth spending one's time on is a philosophy which has practical consequences. like kant's categorical imperative for example. anything which tries to explain the world with one concept be it dualism, materialism, idealism or what ever -ism to me seems vain. all those -isms are just different perspectives. none of them is totally right and none of them is totally false. right now my "philosophical stance" would be a modification of socrate's famous words on knowledge. i'd say i don't know that i know nothing. i know less than socrate.

]]> By: Peter http://www.frogworth.com/blog/archives/2002/12/30/philosophers-zombies-and-jacksons-mary/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Peter Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=221#comment-31 Hm, well I disagree; I think that materialism is the only way to solve the problems of understanding the mind. Dualism solves nothing - it just shunts everything over to "mind-stuff", and then the _how_ questions are just ignored; just like saying "God created the world" is a convenient way of not answering any questions about origins... Admitting you know nothing is all very well but it's just avoiding the question. Materialism is the only way forward for solving the questions, it seems to me. As for "philosophy worth spending time on", I think cognitive science has plenty of practical consequences; and what's more, if it's materialist/scientific-realist in its outlook, it looks to empirical data for its basis. On the other hand, Kant's categorical imperative is a nice idea, but in what way is it practical? If you take it on faith, you're immediately taking whatever _you_ believe to be morally imperative _on faith_. I'd say a moral philosophy ought to be a bit more open to discussion... And do we take the categorical imperative to be something given to us from on high, so to speak, or just as a convenient way of making us act morally, a construct? Anyway, more later. Hm, well I disagree; I think that materialism is the only way to solve the problems of understanding the mind. Dualism solves nothing – it just shunts everything over to "mind-stuff", and then the _how_ questions are just ignored; just like saying "God created the world" is a convenient way of not answering any questions about origins…

Admitting you know nothing is all very well but it's just avoiding the question. Materialism is the only way forward for solving the questions, it seems to me.

As for "philosophy worth spending time on", I think cognitive science has plenty of practical consequences; and what's more, if it's materialist/scientific-realist in its outlook, it looks to empirical data for its basis.
On the other hand, Kant's categorical imperative is a nice idea, but in what way is it practical? If you take it on faith, you're immediately taking whatever _you_ believe to be morally imperative _on faith_. I'd say a moral philosophy ought to be a bit more open to discussion… And do we take the categorical imperative to be something given to us from on high, so to speak, or just as a convenient way of making us act morally, a construct?

Anyway, more later.

]]>