John C. Wright's Blog, page 114
October 22, 2012
On the Necessity of Ontology
A reader apparently named after a famous admiral from Trantor bent on destroying The Foundation, Bel Riose, asks an interesting question, but also cautions us not to the ongoing and endless conversation about materialism to reach its ontological and axiomatic foundations.
“I honestly cannot understand why you guys keep insisting in skipping ahead and talking about ontology when there are relevant questions about physics and questions about the physical reality that Dr. Andreassen is asking but which no dualist in this space, as far as I have traced back this discussion, has been willing or able to answer concisely and clearly.
To follow Mr. Wright’s suggestion I will use the exact philosophical terms: is there physical closure? is there nomological closure in the physical reality? what is the -physical- nature of the interaction between the mind and the physical reality? does this interaction necessarily implies that the laws of physics are nondeterministic or violates said closures?
With all due respect, another set of elaborate metaphors explaining how mental objects and physical objects belong to different categories and therefore cannot interact is not a satisfactory answer and I doubt it is going to be very helpful for any skeptic such as myself. Dualism must solve the problem of interaction.”
I am frankly baffled that anyone calls the solution unsatisfactory. It solves the problem and there is nothing left over to explain and no questions left unasked. if my solution is unsatisfactory, please tell me what you imagine a satisfactory solution would look like?
With all due respect, no, it is simply not true that Dualism must solve the problem of interaction before turning to a discussion of ontology, or indeed, at all. There is no problem of interaction.
All this is assuming you would classify me as a Dualist. Perhaps I am, perhaps not. I believe mind and body differ in substance, by which I mean they are not talked about in the same terms or categories, but I am not a Cartesian.
I would call myself an Accommodationist: my contention is that the use of statements about the mechanical causes of motion or material causes of matter to explain the physical aspects of reality neither confirm nor contradict the use of formal and final causes and categories to explain the nonphysical aspects. They accommodate each other. I hold that the appearance of a conflict is an illusion created by the misuse of words and metaphors.
From my point of view, Dualism has no business solving the problem of interaction before discussing ontology because Monism must first prove that there is a problem of interaction to be solved.
This is exactly where the conversation breaks down: the Monist Materialist seems to be saying that the Dualist is saying immaterial thoughts are a type of mechanical cause which creates physical force that pushes a bit of matter. The Dualist says he is not saying that.
What Dualism and Monism are really discussing is ontology, the question of whether mind and body exist, or exist in the same sense of the word ‘existence’ and how the two relate to each other, if at all.
If my thesis for the last two years has been “there is no problem of interaction to solve because there is no such thing as this so-called interaction” it is worse than useless to announce that the “problem of interaction” must first be solved before the conversation can move on.
To ask us to discuss the mind-body relation without discussing ontology is like asking use to discuss the Theorem of Pythagoras without reference to geometry.
Now, the reason why I say there is no problem of interaction to be solved is because this is a conclusion of my theory of ontology. If you agree with my theory of ontology, then you must agree with my conclusion about the illusory nature of the so called problem of interaction. But I cannot argue that the so called problem of interaction is illusory until and unless I argue the theory of ontology.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 21, 2012
Sophomoronology
A NEW SCIENCE
I propose the study of a new science, to be called Sophomoronology. It will investigate the pathology of philosophy, that is, this new science will study the causes and reasons behind the death of philosophy.
I do not propose merely a psychological study of why some folks believe, or say they believe, so many ideas that are so manifestly lacking in reason, common sense, and logic. Psychology is not our province here. Our province here is to identify the incentives which make it advantageous for a person to adopt and defend a certain philosophy. It is a study of the economics behind the growth and failure of philosophical schools, or, to use an older and clearer term, it is a study of temptations.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 20, 2012
Save CITY OF HEROES!
This weekend is my birthday, and it will mark the last 30 days of operation of the online massive multiplayer superhero game CITY OF HEROES. It is being shut down by NC Soft, and, as best we startled and woebegone players can tell, not due to lack of money.
That this is the best superhero computer game available. No other game has anything near the range of options for power sets and costume design. You can write up a short backstory or bio if you wish, and give your cape a “It’s Clobbering Time” style battlecry, and you can even design your own batcave or secret base. More ambitious players can design and run their own adventures in something like a holodeck, and invite other players to join.
I have roughly one hundred and fifty characters on the fifteen servers in this game. As you can tell from that number, the making up of new characters is my favorite part of the game.
All my characters are going to die in thirty days, evaporate, retire to oblivion, when Paragon City and all its environs and nearby parallel dimension go into oblivion.
Here are a few of my favorites. I include a screen shot and a copy of the bio. See if you recognize anyone.
If you want to sign the petition to keep any of my favorite characters alive, go here: http://www.change.org/petitions/ncsoft-keep-ncsoft-from-shutting-down-city-of-heroes
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 18, 2012
The Same Inescapable Topic Yet Again
A reader who has far more patience for this long dead topic than it deserves asks:
I believe that the question that Dr. Andreassen has been trying to ask with the convoluted Mechaspeare thought-experiment is, do immaterial things impact the trajectory of material things? So, for example, if Shakespeare were sitting at a desk and we had the God-like power to instantly analyze the entire physics of the universe would we absolutely know what he would physically do next?
If we would, Dr. Andreassen concludes, then there is no need believe in immaterial things as they add nothing to predictive power. If we wouldn’t, Dr. Andreassen concludes, then in theory, and at some point in the future, physicists could develop an experiment to show that immaterial things exist. He then is interested in how the immaterial things change the trajectory of material things.
I solemnly assure you that I understand the purpose and point and every nuance of Dr Andreassen’s hypothetical. We have flogged that particular horse of conversation to death and then with additional whip strokes torn the carcass from the bones.
The original conversation consisted of very few exchanges, and then month after month after month of impasses, where neither side said or could say anything new.
His disagreement with me is metaphysical, and since does not believe metaphysical questions are meaningful, he can neither ask nor answer meaningful questions about his position.
It was a question I answered two years ago, and again every few months since.
My answer is and was this: Immaterial things do not suffer physical motion from material things nor impart physical motion to material things. Only material things impart physical motion to material things.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 17, 2012
Separated at Birth?
In German folklore a walking ghost who looks just like you is called Doppelganger. Being a science fiction fan, I first saw the word not used in its original meaning, but as a word to refer to your alternate self from a parallel timeline.
But I am using the word neither in its folklore sense nor its science fiction sense, but to refer to a man who shares my spirit (such as the dry humor and the hatred of irrationality) and shares the spirit of what happened to me, even in some of the details (such as accusations of insanity from people I had thought were friends or colleagues) when I say I have met my Doppelganger.
Good Grief! The man even quotes Aristotle! We are practically twins.
Here is the article, from State Press Magazine (http://www.statepress.com/2012/09/27/from-atheism-to-catechism/)
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 16, 2012
From the Archives: Defining the Indefinable, Defending the Indefensible
Defining the Indefinable, Defending the Indefensible
In reference to this essay here (http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/01/gnosticism-in-action/), a reader asks:
“This may be an odd point to ask this, but how are you defining ‘leftist’? For example, are you describing a garden variety member of the Democratic party or something else?”
This is not odd at all. A call for a definition is always in order, since most disagreement is based on improperly defined terms.
Alas, I am not defining the word Leftist. I cannot. They have spent so much of their time and effort to avoid, elude, evade, and weasel out of defining themselves, that no mere mortal has any ability to find a label that can fit on them.
I do not think the movement, for which I have no satisfactory name, can be defined.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
From the Archives: Parable of the Chessman
Parable of the Chessmen
I have been asked whether the electrons in a brain move “according to” the laws of physics as opposed to moving “according to” the willpower of the thinker.
The question is ambiguous because there are two meanings of “according to.” The dichotomy proposed by the question is a false one — the choice is not between a brain-electron moving “according to” (meaning 2) someone’s will OR moving “according to” (meaning 1) the laws of Newton.
Note the differences here between a proscriptive and a descriptive use of the phrase “according to”. If I shake my head to signify a negative, that is according to my will and according to the convention that a head-shake means ‘no’. That is proscriptive, in accord with a final cause. If Jack Ketch chops my head with an ax, the fall of my head into the basket is “according to” Newton’s laws of gravity. That is descriptive, in accord with a mechanical cause.
The head might indeed make the same motion, but asking for an account of the mechanics is not the same as asking for an justification for my refusal.
It is not an ‘either-or’ question.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 15, 2012
Defining the Indefinable, Defending the Indefensible
In reference to this essay here (http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/01/gnosticism-in-action/), a reader asks:
“This may be an odd point to ask this, but how are you defining ‘leftist’? For example, are you describing a garden variety member of the Democratic party or something else?”
This is not odd at all. A call for a definition is always in order, since most disagreement is based on improperly defined terms.
Alas, I am not defining the word Leftist. I cannot. They have spent so much of their time and effort to avoid, elude, evade, and weasel out of defining themselves, that no mere mortal has any ability to find a label that can fit on them.
I do not think the movement, for which I have no satisfactory name, can be defined.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
Poetry Corner
by: James Elroy Flecker
I WHO am dead a thousand years,
And wrote this sweet archaic song,
Send you my words for messengers
The way I shall not pass along.
I care not if you bridge the seas,
Or ride secure the cruel sky,
Or build consummate palaces
Of metal or of masonry.
But have you wine and music still,
And statues and a bright-eyed love,
And foolish thoughts of good and ill,
And prayers to them who sit above?
How shall we conquer? Like a wind
That falls at eve our fancies blow,
And old Mæonides the blind
Said it three thousand years ago.
O friend unseen, unborn, unknown,
Student of our sweet English tongue,
Read out my words at night, alone:
I was a poet, I was young.
Since I can never see your face,
And never shake you by the hand,
I send my soul through time and space
To greet you. You will understand.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
October 14, 2012
Voting Yourself Out of a Vote
What is a significant, if not the crucial, issue of this election? I fear it is one I have not yet heard discussed.
Libertarians, and men rightly disgusted by Republican stupidity and evil, this candidate is not ideal; but if he is not sufficiently conservative, he can be voted out of office, because the electoral process will be somewhat trustworthy.
I cannot say the same if he does not win.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
John C. Wright's Blog
- John C. Wright's profile
- 448 followers
