Plasmatic

Nicky, because I am fascinated by the nature of the exchange on this topic (and Trump in general) amongst Oist, I'd like to ask you if you could list what some of that evidence is? Edit: Also, do you consider the raw data from Wikileaks misinformation?

I see some subtle nuances still being missed-equivocated on in this thread. I will try to formulate them explicitly here soon.

I have to disagree. His statement clearly says what his view of the facts is "based on". Besides he is a Kellyist, who believe top down correction of philosophy in principle. Edit: The very difference between proof and validation is predicated on the validated facts being self evident. Clearly the special science facts he points to are not a species of the self evident kind.

Don said:. Does this sound like Bissell is excusing the mind from volition? I object to his trying to prove free will from the special sciences but he clearly is not rejecting volition. "Man as a minded willing organism"....

I know. Because you're trying to reduce it to physics. I'm done correcting your evasions for the time being. Lol! I just wanted to point out this little gem of context dropping which led to swig's accusation of evasion. If Efron's paper was titled "Physics without Consciousness" I would have said, " No one here has eliminated consciousness by reducing it to physics". Swig clearly demonstrates the inability to think that a reduction of consciousness to the physical can be anything other than an elimination of consciousness. Yes, consciousness is instatiated in physical causation AND it exist in a qualitatively first person experience. That is not an elimination of consciousness any more than saying an animal must posses a physical stomach in order to perform digestion. To say there is no separate metaphysical stuff called consciousness is not to eliminate it!

Yes indeed. Swig's last response consisted entirely of strawmen. It is clear from his last response that he has not comprehended the actual statements of pretty much anyone in this thread. Rather then address what people actually have said in this thread, he has gone on to insult people with accusations of evasion and make strawman comments about things they have not said. He is one of these Objectivist who thought they knew something about Objectivism but never actually tried to compare this isolated idea to the whole of the Objectivist literature. To to speak of Rand using the word soul or spiritual and then draw the conclusion that what she meant was similar in some ridiculous way to descartes's view of the soul and substance dualism is preposterous. Those Objectivist like Craig Biddle who think that consciousness in Objectivism is somehow "non-physical" and that the idea that consciousness is physical is "reductionist" in the only since they know of, which is materialist who eliminate consciousness reductively, will have to deal with statements made by Dr. Peikoff made in front of Ms. Rand in the 76 lectures, like this: Edit: Here is another relevant Q and A:

Honestly, Ive seen several occasions were Oist seem to be restating Searle without mentioning it....

Regarding Efron's paper: "Biology without consciousness" No one here has argued for eliminating consciousness by reducing it to biology. No one....

Certainly. Nevertheless, the paper provides a very relevant discussion of much the same content Bissell is trying to provide an answer for.

I think this paper is useful on John Searle's criticism on property dualism theory: http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/searle-final.pdf

Swig For the most part Oist usually have a very limited understanding of the general discussion that exist on the topic of The Philosophy of Mind. Ms. Rand herself had a extremely limited conception of " materialism" in that she basically was only referring to what is called an "eliminative reduction". One can be a non-eliminative materialist. If you automatically see someone say they are a materialist, or physicalist and assume that means that the mind doesnt exist, [edit: or that the mind is causaly inefficatious] then you have a problem understanding the general subject and the range of differences within this genus. And in case you didnt know, technically the Objectivist view is a non-eliminative one but nowhere claims that the mind is non-physical. EDIT: Its very important that everyone learn the difference between a causal reduction and an eliminative reduction...

Reduction is an action performed by human entities.

Name any place where Rand made a claim that consciousness was non physical.

Seriously? The majority of this thread is about two different formulations over the ontology of mind. You claim that it is a separate, if dependent, non physical "realm" that "causes" stuff to happen to things..... Everyone else is objecting to your treating consciousness as "fundamentally" "non physical" and as something that causes things on a par with primary entities, as given within Objectivism. I find it hard to believe you aren't aware that this is what others are debating. How are you "making arguments for" something you assume others already agree with?????

Consciousness is metaphysically given. Concepts are man made. The directness of conscious awareness is metaphysically given. The method one uses to direct ones consciousness is man made. You want others to take your method of formulating your introspective content as if it were metaphysically given and offer their own formulations as the same.

But you are begging the question of the neutrality of the ground when the existence of a causal "realm" itself what is being argued. In this case you want your realm to be assumed as uncontested. It is your concept of this "realm" that is being argued against.

Your position does not have to be identical to Platonism to be essentially platonic in a certain respect. The similarity is in that your "mentities" are a proposed "realm" that ideas inhabit that act on the minds of conscious actors. Amanensis and perfection are not essential to that context of similarity. The word is not the concept AND a concept is not a mental entity until symbols are substituted for the concretes the concept is a device for referring to. I object again to your literal use of "concrete" to categorize concepts. More on this below. So you are saying that the mental imagery of introspection, with the aid of language is "concrete" because it is apprehended directly by consciousness. I say to use this sense of "concrete" to make a metaphysical argument for another ontological "realm" is a context dropping formulation. It is a formulation uncontrained by proper hierarchy where the metaphysical is separated from the man made so as to keep causal order clear. Yes, Rand made infuriatingly careless statements in the appendix but that is because she was not publishing her statement as edited finalities, speaking extemporeaneously as it were. Your position that the cases therein are more authoritative despit all that and despite the larger body of Oist literature giving context to these imprecise instances is a mistake. This is a great example of ignoring the larger context of the Oist literature. Abstraction is part of the conceptualization process which creates mental integrations. You can find tons of statements in the literature to demonstrate that Rand agreed. Particularly the context of the statement "abstractions as such do not exist". "We substitute a concrete for the unlimited, open ended number of concretes which the new concrete subsumes." A concept gets its concreteness from language. The word is the concrete that makes the concept into a mental entity. You want to drop the context of the specific use of symbols/language AS concretes to perform the substitution. You want others to communicate with the Mystics criteria of "experience" as a testimony based argument and forego the constraints of objective hierarchy. Existence has causal primacy and not consciousness. Your whole method is askew. As long as people don't try to look at statements from the Appendix in relation to all else that the literature contains, this type of contention will persist. Particularly if they take extemporeaneous comments that were not edited by the author as primary.

I specifically chose the term agnostic because I wanted to nod to Dr. Peikoff's point about epistemological agnostics: To pretend to be neutral as to the validity of the supernaturalist claim by substituting a different word is a mistake. You don't think you are doing that but your position is exactly like that of supernaturalist in the respect of unjustified categorization.

And why would you want to proceed on such agnostic terms on the subject of the invalid concept of supernature? Thorough responses incoming.

Yes, you must be confused.

And Since I have made this very point so many times here, why are you saying this to me while also saying you don't disagree?

Louie, I have no idea what you want to say here. My point to Greg is about causality as a principle being about entities as the cause of action. You responded by reiterating points that I have made in this thread and then saying you don't disagree with me. But the point you are talking about "Rand directly labels them" is not the same subject as my response to Greg involves. The primaries (entities) the principle of causality pertains to are not the "metaphorical" (epistemological) kind I have had cause to admonish you on so many times in past discussions. What are you talking about?

Except that "they" are entities....

This podcast is suspiciously reminiscent of this thread: swig, are you Steve Patterson?

Me willing my body to move is directly experienced introspectively and that does nothing for your attached dualism to this process. I am the entity doing the causing.