15
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
Mainly because we have no idea how mind and matter are supposed to interact
Causation is understood by many in a way that makes that problematic. This post gives a perfectly neutral definition which ...
- 13.5k
12
votes
Accepted
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
The key difference between matter-matter interactions and mind-matter interactions is that we have been able to discover governing relationships (eg Newton's laws, Coulomb's law, General Relativity ...
- 13.1k
7
votes
What am I missing in texts that say things that are so obvious as to seem pointless?
When something appears so obvious that it is uninteresting and yet one knows that others do not find it obvious at all, what one may be missing is understanding what is at stake for them. Why do they ...
- 19.2k
6
votes
Accepted
Who was the Philosopher who said to jump into the fire if you think it is not real?
How about this?
The celebrated Arab commentator Avicenna (ibn Sīnā, 980–1037)
confronts the LNC [Law of Noncontradiction] skeptic...: “As for the obstinate, he must be plunged into
fire, since ...
- 6,110
6
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
Not everyone has an "inner monologue" or ability to vividly imagine things: this is known as aphantasia. At an imaginary-angled diagonal from that, there are also people who are pain-...
- 12.3k
6
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
So there's this supposedly an 'interaction' problem for substance dualism, that isn't there for physicalism or idealism. I've never understood this.
So as Hume pointed out, we see event a followed by ...
- 22.7k
6
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
I agree, the interaction problem is not unique to mind/body questions. For example, the original materialism posited everything was atoms colliding. However, now we know nothing collides, all ...
- 1,553
5
votes
Accepted
What is the contrast between Hume's and Locke's philosophies of science?
There are two related major differences between Locke and Hume, their focus and their conception of science. Locke's is focused on the knowledge new experimental science provides, he is interested in ...
- 42.5k
5
votes
Accepted
Is Goodman's new riddle of induction a restatement of Hume's problem of induction?
Goodman's claim is that Hume has missed the main point about how observing past examples provides confirmation of laws. To appeal to the uniformity of nature is either vacuous or false. The future ...
- 22.8k
5
votes
Does Popper's falsification view of the problem of induction have any implications for the NEW riddle of induction?
Goodman's new riddle of induction is old wine in new bottles. The substance behind the problem of induction is the following. People imagine that they arrive at theories by looking at evidence and ...
- 7,420
5
votes
What's wrong with this reconstruction of Nagarjuna?
In his book The Fundalmental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Malamadhyamakakarika, Jay L. Garfield writes for his translation and commentary on this verse:
The essence of entities
Is ...
- 3,621
5
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
Mind is software, the brain hardware. Back in 1973, when I used to write drivers for hardware on an HP2100 minicomputer, we had hardware instructions that wrote to devices and read from them (I/O ...
- 455
4
votes
Is anyone now writing philosophy in the style of Plato - the Dialogue?
Here are a few examples of books using the dialogue form:
Worlds Apart: A Dialogue of the 1960's by Owen Barfield (1963) is written in the form of a fictional dialogue.
Corydon by André Gide (1911) ...
- 387
4
votes
Accepted
What is the difference between correlation and causation?
What is the difference between correlation and causation?
Correlation is a descriptive relationship, all it says is: here are a bunch of measurements of two (or more variables) and there is a ...
- 27.1k
4
votes
Is number π empirical or a priori?
Kant only had three epistemic categories, analytic a posteriori are highly problematic (even Kripke talks only about necessary a posteriori). As for π it was originally defined as a ratio of the ...
- 42.5k
4
votes
What was Kant's particular rejection of the virtue of benevolence based in?
For Kant motives other than duty are morally unworthy. He held this view, because these other kinds of motives depend upon some condition. He calls them hypothetical imperatives. They generally have ...
- 136
4
votes
Accepted
Empiricism out the door
David Hume wrote this line in his character Cleanthes's voice, in Part One of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall ...
- 5,498
4
votes
What does Hume mean by "genius"?
See the etymology of genius:
Sense of "characteristic disposition" of a person is from 1580s. Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" and that of "exalted natural mental ability" are ...
- 36.1k
4
votes
Accepted
Why can't uniformity of nature (in principle) be proven deductively?
The quoted passage is part of an exposition of Hume's original argument. One of the previous paragraphs explains what "deductively" meant to Hume:
"The deductive system that Hume had at hand was ...
- 42.5k
4
votes
Hume on matter of fact
Hume's view is that ideas derive from impressions, meaning roughly and to take an example that I cannot have the idea of blue unless I have had sensory experience (impression) of the colour. The idea ...
- 35.4k
4
votes
Accepted
Does Popper's falsification view of the problem of induction have any implications for the NEW riddle of induction?
Here is my understanding of Karl Popper and Nelson Goodman. Both talk about whether and when observations may corroborate a given hypothesis. Popper concludes that observations may falsify, but never ...
- 6,110
4
votes
Accepted
Why is Hume struggling to reconcile causality with his notion of what is knowable?
It was an epistemological problem, Hume's theory of impressions and ideas was a bit too simplistic to describe human cognition realistically, which is understandable given the state of psychology at ...
- 42.5k
4
votes
Moral skepticism and "walking the talk"
Psychology
I don't think a philosophy site is the best place to explain the psychology of philosophers' practical stance(s) towards morality. But some response can be made.
Fact/ value distinction
...
- 35.4k
4
votes
Accepted
Hume: excavating the is/ ought gap
The limits of means/ end reasoning
'Ought' operates in a variety of contexts outside means/ end (instrumental) reasoning.
Take the case of : 'The train ought to arrive by 21.00hrs'. This means that ...
- 35.4k
4
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
I am not sure if I have an answer as much as some considerations you can make about this topic.
Who saw the event A?
First I want to talk about what it means to observe events A and B. If the sun ...
- 358
4
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
The interaction problem was brought to René Descartes' attention by his pupil, Princess Elisabeth. Her argument is that of all material phenomena heretofore observed, it has always been matter on ...
- 3,196
4
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
The issue with trying to use science as described to tease out the rules of mind-matter interaction is collecting the data points of the mind. We have no measurement devices to take data like we do ...
- 141
4
votes
Why is mind interacting with matter any more problematic than matter interacting with matter?
Put aside "how" matter influences matter.
The question is whether the laws of physics (as we know them) leave any room for "mind" to influence matter.
If you believe that mind can ...
- 223
3
votes
What is the difference between correlation and causation?
Correlation and causality are not the same:
Correlation is a fact which stems simply from observation - like in your nice example.
On the opposite, causation answers in addition the question: Why?
...
- 24.1k
3
votes
Is Hume's Fork self-refuting?
It would seem that Hume considered his own philosophical enquiries to fall squarely on the side of "experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence". This is spelled out in the ...
- 7,311
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible