<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s get clear about materialism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adam Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4516</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4516</guid>
		<description>It is an overstatement, to say the least, to claim that "the materialist conception of the person—which, pace Brooks, is in fact the consensus coming out of modern cognitive science."  First, many cognitive scientists start the game with this "consensus" established a priori as an explicit research program just as physicists begin with the assumption of a grand unification.  Its not open to question.  Secondly, there are more than enough cognitive scientists who recognize the ever spiraling difficulty of the so-called "hard problem."  Your bias is evident, and you are hiding it as science just, perhaps, as Brooks did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is an overstatement, to say the least, to claim that &#8220;the materialist conception of the person—which, pace Brooks, is in fact the consensus coming out of modern cognitive science.&#8221;  First, many cognitive scientists start the game with this &#8220;consensus&#8221; established a priori as an explicit research program just as physicists begin with the assumption of a grand unification.  Its not open to question.  Secondly, there are more than enough cognitive scientists who recognize the ever spiraling difficulty of the so-called &#8220;hard problem.&#8221;  Your bias is evident, and you are hiding it as science just, perhaps, as Brooks did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robin Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4514</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4514</guid>
		<description>The mistake in materialist theories is that they reduce the mind to the brain, and as a result these theorists become very quickly "brain-dead," viz. they cannot think outside "the box." Even if we knew what "brain states" or "mental states" were (and these two are not identical), we could infer very little from this about the whole person, simply because the person is a mystery about whom only the surface can be rationally apprised. Unless knowledge of the "depths" of the human person is known, and unless we are already aware of and living within the mystical, claims about brain-states are groundless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mistake in materialist theories is that they reduce the mind to the brain, and as a result these theorists become very quickly &#8220;brain-dead,&#8221; viz. they cannot think outside &#8220;the box.&#8221; Even if we knew what &#8220;brain states&#8221; or &#8220;mental states&#8221; were (and these two are not identical), we could infer very little from this about the whole person, simply because the person is a mystery about whom only the surface can be rationally apprised. Unless knowledge of the &#8220;depths&#8221; of the human person is known, and unless we are already aware of and living within the mystical, claims about brain-states are groundless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Schneider</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4470</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Schneider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4470</guid>
		<description>This post was picked up at 3QuarksDaily, a popular filter blog. A lively conversation has sprung up about it there, which we invite you to visit: &lt;a href="http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/08/getting-clear-a.html#comments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"&gt;Getting Clear about Materialism&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post was picked up at 3QuarksDaily, a popular filter blog. A lively conversation has sprung up about it there, which we invite you to visit: <a href="http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/08/getting-clear-a.html#comments" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Getting Clear about Materialism</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Smyth</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4466</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Smyth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4466</guid>
		<description>One might think that an article called "Let’s get clear about materialism" might feature a definition of materialism.  I can't help but think that getting clear on this might have helped the author to refrain from making several bizarre suggestions, such as that materialism has been *empirically* verified or that hyper-reductionist physicalism is a coherent doctrine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One might think that an article called &#8220;Let’s get clear about materialism&#8221; might feature a definition of materialism.  I can&#8217;t help but think that getting clear on this might have helped the author to refrain from making several bizarre suggestions, such as that materialism has been *empirically* verified or that hyper-reductionist physicalism is a coherent doctrine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Winsor</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4443</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Winsor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4443</guid>
		<description>About the "squishy" part. &lt;a href="http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185#science" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"&gt;This Brooks quote is from a Pew panel&lt;/a&gt;, which might help clarify what he meant (I am not endorsing his ideas, which I don't feel qualified to evaluate, just pointing them out).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About the &#8220;squishy&#8221; part. <a href="http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185#science" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">This Brooks quote is from a Pew panel</a>, which might help clarify what he meant (I am not endorsing his ideas, which I don&#8217;t feel qualified to evaluate, just pointing them out).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Winsor</title>
		<link>http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/08/01/lets-get-clear-about-materialism/#comment-4442</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Winsor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Aug 2008 00:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=317#comment-4442</guid>
		<description>Interesting quote from the Dalai Lama:

&lt;blockquote&gt;I said to one of the scientists: "It seems very evident that due to changes in the chemical process of the brain, many of our own subjective experiences like perception and sensation occur: Can one envision the reversal of this causal process? Can one postulate that pure thought itself could effect a change in the chemical process of the brain?" I was asking whether, conceptually at least, we could allow the possibility of both upward and downward causation.

The scientist's response was quite surprising. He said that since all mental states arise from physical states, it is not possible for downward causation to occur. Although, out of politeness, I did not respond at the time, I thought then and still think that there is yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim. The view that all mental processes are necessarily physical processes is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact. I feel that, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, it is critical that we allow the question to remain open, and not conflate our assumptions with empirical fact." 

--From &lt;i&gt;The Universe in a Single Atom&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting quote from the Dalai Lama:</p>
<blockquote><p>I said to one of the scientists: &#8220;It seems very evident that due to changes in the chemical process of the brain, many of our own subjective experiences like perception and sensation occur: Can one envision the reversal of this causal process? Can one postulate that pure thought itself could effect a change in the chemical process of the brain?&#8221; I was asking whether, conceptually at least, we could allow the possibility of both upward and downward causation.</p>
<p>The scientist&#8217;s response was quite surprising. He said that since all mental states arise from physical states, it is not possible for downward causation to occur. Although, out of politeness, I did not respond at the time, I thought then and still think that there is yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim. The view that all mental processes are necessarily physical processes is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact. I feel that, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, it is critical that we allow the question to remain open, and not conflate our assumptions with empirical fact.&#8221; </p>
<p>&#8211;From <i>The Universe in a Single Atom</i></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
