Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Damasio's Error & Descartes' Truth - An Inquiry into Consciousness, Metaphysics, & Ep

#1
C C Offline
Damasio's Error & Descartes' Truth - An Inquiry into Consciousness, Metaphysics, & Epistemology
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc...458&cn=394

EXCERPT (book review by Sandra Egege): According to [Andrew L. ] Gluck, drawing metaphysical conclusions from empirical findings commits a logical fallacy in that it 'presupposes what it sets out to prove.' Not only does it assume the reality of the physical world but it confuses a narrow, limited scientific reality with 'ultimate reality' (pp. xvii-xix). In contrast to this, Gluck suggests that there may be more than one truth and puts forward a case for a pluralistic metaphysics. This does not mean he is arguing for the mutual existence of the non-physical / spiritual with the physical as within the traditional dualist metaphysical model. Rather, he is putting forward the idea that different disciplines should use different metaphysical frameworks, as dictated by the limitations of their subject matter. He suggests physical monism as the most suitable for the sciences, neutral monism for aesthetics and mind/body dualism for the social sciences. He takes this position because of the limitations of the scientific paradigm to deal with subjectivity and phenomena like consciousness.

Positing a multiple metaphysics is a controversial position, but one that could be of great import to discussions about the reality of the self and consciousness. Within science, selves have no concrete reality or, at best, have a kind of abstract existence. Could a multiple metaphysical approach help categorise anomalous phenomena like selves and qualia and offer a clearer picture of where our experienced reality fits with the scientific worldview, and vice versa? Could God still have a place?

Given this expectation, I began to read Gluck's text under the supposition that it would expound some kind of detailed metaphysics that, in the process, would reveal where Damasio (and those of his persuasion) had gone wrong in their contentions about the self and that this analysis would vindicate Descartes. Not so. While Gluck does begin by expounding a pluralistic metaphysical position, he does not directly offer a critique of Damasio's and others' ideas, nor does he offer a defence of Descartes. What he does claim is that Damasio was wrong in claiming that science has shown 'once and for all' that Descartes was wrong and that mind and body are not metaphysically separate entities. Nor can Damasio claim that Spinoza was right about ultimate reality being a neutral substance. For Gluck, this is committing the logical fallacy of assuming what it is one wants to prove. Science can't justify metaphysics because metaphysical assumptions are inherent in the scientific enterprise....
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
I agree. Since philosophy is what justifies standards of evidence, it seems silly (circular reasoning) to think that scientific evidence could then justify a specific, predominate metaphysical school of thought.
Reply
#3
Ostronomos Offline
Thank you. A pluralistic metaphysics would have to fall under one theoretical framework however different and distant from their mutual counterparts. This is because Conscious minds contain contextual truths and it is the task of the mind to shine light on which of these truths corresponds exactly with reality. A freeing up of subconscious information by the treatment of logical analysis on science. Dreaming is another way of freeing this information up although different from conscious analysis. Physics is derived from observation and the application of experimentation to it, along with intermediate hypotheses. According to A Very Brief History of Time, Christopher Michael Langan observed that the self possesses the property of time invariance and that it is the net total of every additional moments intersecting with each other. This is an inescapable truth that can be used to defeat any claim to the contrary.
Reply
#4
Ostronomos Offline
I hate you CC. You don't even respond to your own threads.
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Jan 11, 2017 03:54 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I hate you CC.


Already well known. As bait / provocation, even your expressing that again in more vulgar terms (as in the past) is as likely to succeed as trying to elicit reciprocal juvenile or TJSS behavior from an IPA.

Quote:You don't even respond to your own threads.


In literal context, I don't have a sockpuppet to respond to my own threads with even if I wanted to.

The third-party content I post is usually for the interest of others (news / reviews / material or classic past items of what's going on in the world of _x_ category). Should I have a personal agenda underlying such where promotional or defensive replies would be warranted, that would be indicated in some text of my own prior to or after the third-party content.

If the best which I've got to supplement another poster's comments about the third-party content with is something that's a pretty useless eructation, an observation of the obvious (either positive / negative / indifferent), could be summed up with an emoji, etc -- then that infecund gesture is often not going to happen.
Reply
#6
Ostronomos Offline
Now you've moved around the topic to insult me. Calling my behavior juvenile. Fine then, be that way. I will have you know that refusing to reply to my response has discouraged me from bothering to read the majority of future threads of yours. And we all know how much you need that.

But thank you for affirming that in the latter part in a very respectful manner. However, I feel that your energy should not be spent on trivial things like pointing that out. At least you're not playing the blame game as a lesser mind would.

Mad props.

P.S. I have hindsight.
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
I would ask, but would anyone admit to inviting this?
Reply
#8
Ostronomos Offline
(Jan 12, 2017 01:12 AM)Syne Wrote: I would ask, but would anyone admit to inviting this?

I hope you don't read it as abuse. It is not so much that he is inviting it, it is that I am creating a diversion and testing the waters. You can consider me a scientist of sorts when it comes to fuckedupidness.
Reply
#9
Ostronomos Offline
CC kind of invited it if you think about it anyway. I consider the whole thing funny. One thing about me is that I never hide behind a facade.
Reply
#10
Syne Offline
No, I mean to the whole forum.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Cicero on the desirability of emotion + Damasio & Seth conversation on consciousness C C 0 69 Feb 7, 2022 01:05 AM
Last Post: C C
  God consciousness is connective consciousness Ostronomos 3 145 Jul 29, 2021 09:56 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  “More important than logic is truth & in particular the truth of some contradictions" C C 3 279 Apr 11, 2021 10:02 AM
Last Post: C C
  Mathematical Metaphysics Revisited Ostronomos 0 107 Mar 30, 2021 09:21 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Susan Stebbing on metaphysics and beauty C C 0 141 Nov 20, 2020 08:06 AM
Last Post: C C
  No escape from metaphysics (an interivew with Trenton Merricks) C C 1 180 Aug 1, 2020 06:01 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Reality as Metaphysics Ostronomos 1 387 Sep 29, 2018 05:44 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Illusion of personal objectivity: From fundamental error to truly fundamental error C C 2 667 Sep 26, 2018 04:55 PM
Last Post: Yazata
  Reality as a Whole and Metaphysics Ostronomos 0 340 Sep 16, 2018 06:07 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Science and metaphysics must work together C C 8 1,814 Dec 6, 2017 07:52 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)