Morality By Oxytocin

[wenglund]

All you have to do is read the article. It's not that hard. It says what it says, there is not much to "misunderstand". It's funny that all the commentators on the article also see what it says. Pick any source you like.

For those who don't have the time to read the article or learn about Nagel, there is always wonderful wikipedia.

Yes, but Kevin knows better than anyone, even Nagel, what Nagel meant. He has that special gift.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Yes, but Kevin knows better than anyone, even Nagel, what Nagel meant. He has that special gift.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I definitely know better than either of you. I have no problem with Nagel, only mfbukowski's misuse of Nagel. But you wouldn't understand this because you've never read any of this stuff. You never read or watch anything you're critiquing (i.e. Gee's presentation). Mfbukowski does this all the time, pretending Nagel's famous Bat argument somehow supports the LDS concept of spiritual experience. It doesn't. He "understand" Nagel only as far as he thinks he can use him to prop up his religious beliefs whereas you don't understand Nagel at all.

If you read the link to the previous thread you'll see where I demonstrated his attempt to use Nagel to support the LDS testimony. He keeps thinking Nagel somehow refuted Physicalism, but he didn't. Of course, this requires a careful reading of Nagel, but mfbukowski instead directs our attention to online summaries written by mysterious people (wiki!), who seem to share the same sophomoric understanding as mfbukowski. As for me, I'd prefer to stick with Nagel to let him make his own argument.

[mfbukowski]

I definitely know better than either of you. I have no problem with Nagel, only mfbukowski's misuse of Nagel. But you wouldn't understand this because you've never read any of this stuff. You never read or watch anything you're critiquing (i.e. Gee's presentation). Mfbukowski does this all the time, pretending Nagel's famous Bat argument somehow supports the LDS concept of spiritual experience. It doesn't. He "understand" Nagel only as far as he thinks he can use him to prop up his religious beliefs whereas you don't understand Nagel at all.

If you read the link to the previous thread you'll see where I demonstrated his attempt to use Nagel to support the LDS testimony. He keeps thinking Nagel somehow refuted Physicalism, but he didn't. Of course, this requires a careful reading of Nagel, but mfbukowski instead directs our attention to online summaries written by mysterious people (wiki!), who seem to share the same sophomoric understanding as mfbukowski. As for me, I'd prefer to stick with Nagel to let him make his own argument.

I really don't care what you think he says, please demonstrate your points with quotes from Nagel instead of all this insinuation garbage. Demonstrate precisely how I misunderstand him in relation to physicalism.

Actually I don't use Nagel all that much- he is an atheist after all, but not much of one. All that is important is the distinction between the subjective and objective and his notion of what constitutes "objectivity". It is indeed an important distinction and has been repeatedly acknowledged as such by many philosophers.

Nagel really doesn't say anything about spiritual experience, just physicalism and the nature of the subjective and objective.

Actually for my support of spiritual experience, I use William James.

Please refute William James while you're at it.

Quit playing to all those who don't know what we're talking about and answer the argument instead of grandstanding

In other words

CFR

Edited January 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I definitely know better than either of you.

Of course you do. Not only are you the foremost Egyptologist, but you are also the ultimate expert in philosophy. Your pronouncements on these subjects are as good as, if not themselves, fact. Your credibility, particularly in these subject areas, in terms of reading comprehension and interpretation is beyond reproach and unarguable. Is it any wonder, then, that you wipe up the floor with apologists every time you post.

You never read or watch anything you're critiquing (i.e. Gee's presentation).

I know. Even when I quote from and carefully analyze what people say, it isn't from reading or whatching what they say. I am not sure what it is that I did read or analyze or where I got the quotes, but obviously since you said I never read anything, then it is a fact that I did not. You would know since you are as close to anyone to being omniscient.

If you read the link to the previous thread you'll see where I demonstrated his attempt to use Nagel to support the LDS testimony. He keeps thinking Nagel somehow refuted Physicalism, but he didn't. Of course, this requires a careful reading of Nagel, but mfbukowski instead directs our attention to online summaries written by mysterious people (wiki!), who seem to share the same sophomoric understanding as mfbukowski. As for me, I'd prefer to stick with Nagel to let him make his own argument.

I thought I did read through the thread and concluded, ironically, that it was you who didn't understand. But, again, because you said otherwise, I couldn't have read the thread nor could I have rightly come to that conclusion. In fact, I couldn't have read the thread even when it was in progress, and this in spite of my posts being scattered throughout the thread (wait a minute--how can I know this if I haven't read the thread?). Evidently, I must be hilucinating. Kevin can't ever be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nemesis]

Anyway we can separate you to or maybe you guys can take your bickering to mdb?

Nemesis

[Xander]

No one asks wade to follow me around but he does so anyway. I responded to a comment by Tarski because it relates to a past exchange I had with mfbukowski. Wade wants to diffuse the situation with sarcasm, but the facts remain for anyone willing to read the link I posted. He is all about diversion, never about dealing with the issues. I don't see why I'm accused of bickering for simply stating my position that has nothing to do with wade. I wasn't addressing wade. He is the one who feels he has to respond to everything I say with sarcasm. He has no argument, ever.

Maybe I'll start a thread this weekend discussing Nagel's irrelevance for the Mormon "spiritual" experience.

[Nemesis]

I don't see why I'm accused of bickering for simply stating my position that has nothing to do with wade.

Why? Because that's all it looks like. If he is saying something irrelevant or deviating from the discussion just ignore him and don't respond.

Nemesis

[Xander]

Why isn't he given the same instruction? It seems things would go much more smoothly. As I said, he is always the one who engages me. I don't think I've ever engaged wade.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

I really don't care what you think he says, please demonstrate your points with quotes from Nagel instead of all this insinuation garbage. Demonstrate precisely how I misunderstand him in relation to physicalism.

I already did in the previous thread. It was closed down before I had a chance to respond to your follow-up comments. Why don't you go ahead and lay out your "argument" in clear terms for us. Because you've been very vague in the past how you think Nagel supports anything you've been saying. You tend to name-drop philosophers and then leave it at that.

[wenglund]

Why isn't he given the same instruction? It seems things would go much more smoothly. As I said, he is always the one who engages me. I don't think I've ever engaged wade.

Kevin is of course correct. When, among many examples that could be cited, I was quoted in his post #52 above, along with the word "you" in his statement, it wasn't really him engaging what I said, ever. Someone is obviously trying to make Kevin out to be insipid by illegitimately imbedding that quote and the "you" word into what he said. Please stop.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 5, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Maybe I'll start a thread this weekend discussing Nagel's irrelevance for the Mormon "spiritual" experience.

Please do.

I never said he was relevant to spiritual experiences, just to physical explanations of subjective experience. If I did, I was mistaken, but I don't think I did. As I said, it is William James who finds it "reasonable" pragmatically to believe in religious experience.

[mfbukowski]

I already did in the previous thread. It was closed down before I had a chance to respond to your follow-up comments. Why don't you go ahead and lay out your "argument" in clear terms for us. Because you've been very vague in the past how you think Nagel supports anything you've been saying. You tend to name-drop philosophers and then leave it at that.

I have already made my position on Nagel clear. I really don't know what is so mysterious about what he says- it is all there to be read by anyone. Quite convenient that you never got around to responding on the other thread, but now you use it to say that your brilliant follow ups which don't exist proved me wrong?

Pretty unbelievable. The thread speaks for itself, Nagel speaks for himself, I speak for myself. There is no mystery here

Because you've been very vague in the past how you think Nagel supports anything you've been saying.

And yet you are certain that I use his arguments to support the LDS religious experience? Either I am vague or I am not. Please get your story straight and stick to it.

I use his arguments to support the difference between "subjective" and "objective". I typically use only one philosopher per point because I want what I say to ring a bell with people who are not familiar with these points so they can remember where to find good arguments.

If you like, I would be glad to quote others who have similar positions to Nagel. Nagel didn't make this up in a vacuum and there have been many scholarly responses to Nagel obviously since 1974

If you want to do the most boring thread ever, please let's get into it. We can talk about all the arguments and counter arguments forever.

And we will end up being totally irrelevant to anyone's life who reads this board, which is not a philosophy board.

Edited January 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nemesis]

Why isn't he given the same instruction? It seems things would go much more smoothly. As I said, he is always the one who engages me. I don't think I've ever engaged wade.

He was see

Anyway we can separate you to or maybe you guys can take your bickering to mdb?

Nemesis

[Xander]

I have already made my position on Nagel clear. I really don't know what is so mysterious about what he says- it is all there to be read by anyone. Quite convenient that you never got around to responding on the other thread, but now you use it to say that your brilliant follow ups which don't exist proved me wrong?

There is nothing mysterious about Nagel's arguments, only the way in which you invoke him throughout your Mormon apoloegtic experience. And there was nothing convenient about the mods shutting down the thread right after you had the last say. Again, I said I'll start a thread on this over the weekend.

And yet you are certain that I use his arguments to support the LDS religious experience? Either I am vague or I am not. Please get your story straight and stick to it.

You invoked him on the other thread that was dedicated to discussing the Mormon spiritual experience, yes. And now you're using him to make the ludicrous claim that our experiences have nothing to do with physical mental states.

I use his arguments to support the difference between "subjective" and "objective".

If memory serves, you also tried to use him to refute Phsyicalism which is why you carefully dissected that citation for your "siggy."

I typically use only one philosopher per point because I want what I say to ring a bell with people who are not familiar with these points so they can remember where to find good arguments.

Nagel doesn't agree with you so while his arguments are good, yours are not.

If you want to do the most boring thread ever, please let's get into it. We can talk about all the arguments and counter arguments forever.

I'm only interested in your boring misuse of Nagel, because you do this all the flippin time.

And we will end up being totally irrelevant to anyone's life who reads this board, which is not a philosophy board

Then why are you constantly invoking philosophers to make it sound like LDS apologetic claims are supported by them?

[mfbukowski]

You know lots of times I am guilty of making offhand remarks because I think they are clever without connecting my brain- I readily admit that, and need to work on it.

In going back over the thread, I notice I did in fact say something that I did not mean.

I did not mean that "experience had nothing to do with brain states"- I said it though I didn't see the significance of that when Tarski correctly brought it up.

What I meant was that statements about objective brain states have nothing to do with statements about the phenomenology of subjective experience.

Somehow that got "shorthanded" in my brain to "experience has nothing to do with brain states"- clearly an error.

I got it right earlier on post 36- and that is what I stand by

"On the other hand, one cannot reduce a description of a spiritual experience to a description of some physical "cause" any more than we can look into someone's brain and see what he is thinking. It's like trying to describe the proverbial taste of salt or the color red, or knowing if someone sees the same "red" that we do. The point is that they are not logically equivalent.

Another way of saying this is that propositions in the first person (which typically start with the pronoun "I" or "we") cannot be reduced to third person propositions (observations about what "he, she or it" did.)

"I feel euphoric" is not, nor ever will be logically equivalent to some description of my brain state, even if we term one the "cause" of the other."

I was so caught up in the argument, and speaking in kind of a shorthand, that I said something that I don't even believe. Trust me- I lived through the '60's and know that chemicals definitely have something to do with brain states. You couldn't live through that time and not know that.

But I stand by all my statements about Nagel.

Edited January 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And now you're using him to make the ludicrous claim that our experiences have nothing to do with physical mental states.

See above.

If memory serves, you also tried to use him to refute Phsyicalism which is why you carefully dissected that citation for your "siggy."

Yep. That is what he does, I think successfully.

Then why are you constantly invoking philosophers to make it sound like LDS apologetic claims are supported by them?

I can't imagine I have ever done that.

The only apologetic claims I make are my own, and yes, I do think that my apologetic claims are supported by the philosophers I quote. Why else would I quote them?

[mfbukowski]

The only apologetic claims I make are my own, and yes, I do think that my apologetic claims are supported by the philosophers I quote. Why else would I quote them?

Let me clarify that last sentence.

What I meant was that I do not use philosophers to say something like "Nagel proves the LDS church is true because...." or "William James supports the LDS view of personal revelation because...."

As everyone around here knows, my personal view of LDS positions are not necessarily the classical way most people understand those LDS positions. So what I was saying is that I believe the philosophers I quote support MY idiosyncratic apologetic stance- since I had that philosophical stance before I joined the church. So I support my position by quoting philosophers, but I am not saying that those quoted would in any way endorse the LDS church or its apologetics. Clearly, in most cases, they wouldn't.

Edited January 7, 2012 by mfbukowski