James Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought

[ccmnxc]

You had said “that the mind is immaterial is a conclusion here, not an assumption” and I pointed out that he argues that a material mind can’t do something, but provides no argument that an immaterial mind can, or even that an immaterial mind is a coherent proposition. You now make a claim which he never makes, that immaterial is somehow the logical complement of material. That’s not at all what the word means, again OED: immaterial 2: Philosophy Spiritual, rather than physical. Come on, I’m wondering if you’re taking this seriously now. Before we go on, prove there is such a thing as an immaterial mind and it isn’t a fiction.

The more you read Ross the more you come to realize that he leaves a lot of the blanks for you to fill in. If you take a look at one of the (or perhaps the only, but I cannot remember where it is) reviews of his book Thought and World from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, this is one of the comments made, that Ross can be rather stingy in filling the whole thing out. So I agree that he never directly states that immaterial and material are proper negations of each other, but it was inferred from what he wrote. So sure, Ross neither argues that an immaterial mind can instantiate said functions determinately in reasoning processes, and neither does he even argue for the coherence of immaterial minds. But again, he doesn’t have to. Given the truth that we reason determinately (I know you don’t agree, but this is how the argument is traced out), and that the material cannot provide the capability of doing so, then the ~material must do so by necessity.

Now you again chastise me for not using the OED definition here, but again this is an equivocation. Perhaps you can infer that description from the negation of material, but that is not what Ross is doing, and it is Ross’s usage of the term that is relevant here, otherwise you aren’t even discussing the same thing. So asking me to prove the existence of an immaterial mind is to absolutely miss the point, because that is exactly what the argument we are discussing does using the logical strategy outlined above, namely:

1. X obtains.
2. Either P accounts for X’s obtaining or ~P accounts for X’s obtaining.
3. P does not account for X’s obtaining
4. Therefore, ~P accounts for X’s obtaining.
   I see nothing objectionable about this process.

Can’t see how the empirical evidence of the near total silence of his peers on his argument can be brushed aside as ad hominem, although I grant you that your reply, that it “would jeopardize their precious materialism”, was cheap .

The most you could escape with here is an argument from authority, but since an argument from authority is always weaker than an argument proper, it is still an irrelevant critique. Most philosophers throughout history would disagree with contemporary materialism, but that hardly counts as a good objection against someone who is giving me a straight argument for materialism.

Ross is nothing to me, his paper has more holes that a fishing net, you left the thread hanging for several weeks, you don’t link to that post, don’t even quote it by number, but by date and time, in, I take it, your own time zone. Ross’ paper is linked in the OP, and I quoted directly from the center of page 138 and tried to answer your question as best I’m able, only to be told I’m lying and evading. And you’re loosing patience?

I don’t know what to tell you inocente. I get you see no merit to Ross’s argument, I acknowledge that I stepped away for a decent while (don’t know why that’s relevant though), I point out the date and time because in “Reply to Thread” mode, there is neither post number nor capability of linking to said post, at least with my level of technical know-how, so I simply pointed out the time, which, incidentally, is not my time zone, which is why I inferred it would be the same for you as well.
You also, I acknowledge, directly quote from page 138. The problem with that is that you quote 138 (which isn’t even the body of Ross’s defense for the premise that all formal thought must be determinate, though this can yield to more charitable interpretation) and then proceed to immediately disregard it, ascribing to Ross’s defense of his position a “feeling” that it is such as opposed to his offering at least three retorsive arguments to the denial of the relevant premise, which start at the very bottom of 145 and taking up most of 146. This is the part that I quoted earlier in the conversation. So yes, Ross does argue that it is more than a subjective feeling, and it seems that what you say he disregards isn’t even relevant given that that the success of his retorsive arguments is entailed by the fact that their failure would entail absurd and incoherent consequences.

So are you lying and evading? I haven no idea about the former, though I will say that you consistently do not seem to be understanding what Ross is saying here, particularly in terms of definitions (like the word determinate) and the logical structure of his argument. But again, I cannot completely fault you because Ross does indeed leave a lot to be inferred by the reader.
But in terms of evading, I will say that there is some degree of evasion, yes, if for no other reason than the fact that I asked you the same question multiple times, even highlighting that this was something I wanted answered that you had passed over, and I get no answer. I got a response, to be sure, but no answer. If this accusation seems unjust to you, I’m sorry, but I don’t really see any other realistic way of calling it. My questions were emphasized and they were, so far as I could see, very straightforward, but if you can account for it, I would happily rescind the accusation also.

 

[inocente]

But in terms of evading, I will say that there is some degree of evasion, yes.

I’m unsubscribing the thread, so by all means have the last word, I won’t see it. You must have known I’d look at this part of your reply before any other, you had a second chance to be charitable, you weren’t, goodbye.