Presuppositional Apologetics

[grmorton]

Claiming something is unknowable would be 'arguing from ignorance. I do not believe the relationship between the mind and consciousness can be described as unknowable in terms of what science is capable of in the future.

Since it is actually 'off topic' I will start a another thread concerning this issue.

Some things ARE unknowable, Shunya. How much matter is in the brane next door. How many universes has the inflaton field created.

The argument from ignorance is the claim that something is true because it hasn't been proven false. There is also what I call the argument ad hopium. Something is true because I want and hope it to be true. You are engaging in Argument ad hopium like many YECS do, who say if only more info is learned it will show that the earth is 6000 years old. Your argument is precisely parallel with that. As Element said, having a wiring diagram doesn't explain feeling.

Searles outlines the problem with having mental states being aligned with feelings:

"My desire not to get wet will manifest itself in this behavior only if I have the belief that the umbrella will keep me dry. So there are at least two difficulties with behaviorism besides the obvious one that it seems implausible. The first is that it cannot account for the causal relations between mind and behavior, and the second is that the relation between a mental state and behavior cannot be analyzed without mentioning other mental states. To analyze beliefs you have to have desires, and, conversely, to analyze desires you have to have beliefs.”
“In light of these difficulties, the next great move of the materialists was to say that mental states are identical with states of the brain. This theory, put forth by J.J. C. Smart and others, is called "physicalism" or the "identity theory," and it comes in different versions. But it too has difficulties. One difficulty is that we need to be able to explain what it is about a state of a brain that makes it a mental state as opposed to other states of the brain that are not mental states.”

gotta go to bed now, Chemo tomorrow morning early.

[shunyadragon]

Some things ARE unknowable, Shunya. How much matter is in the brain next door. How many universes has the inflation field created.

The argument from ignorance is the claim that something is true because it hasn't been falsified (proven) false.

Claiming certain knowledge concerning the relationship between the brain, and mind and consciousness is 'unknowable' is true, because it has not been proven false is indeed an 'argument from ignorance.'

It is also a tough ticket to falsify (prove) the negative.

Searles outlines the problem with having mental states being aligned with feelings:

True, there being many problems at present with 'mental states being aligned with feelings,' but this does not translate to being 'unknowable.'

Searle also obviously has to deal with 'IF' issues that are not conclusive.

gotta go to bed now, Chemo tomorrow morning early.

My prayers are with your treatment for a positive outcome.

[grmorton]

Claiming certain knowledge concerning the relationship between the brain, and mind and consciousness is 'unknowable' is true, because it has not been proven false is indeed an 'argument from ignorance.'

It is also a tough ticket to falsify (prove) the negative.



True, there being many problems at present with 'mental states being aligned with feelings,' but this does not translate to being 'unknowable.'

Searle also obviously has to deal with 'IF' issues that are not conclusive.






My prayers are with your treatment for a positive outcome.

Thanks Shunya, but there really isn't a positive outcome except extended life with the cancer I now have. I am not feeling sorry for myself because I have lived an amazing life for a kid who grew up on the Sac and Fox reservation going to a four room school that was grades 1-8 in Oklahoma!

I don't deny your definition of argument from ignorance, but as someone else pointed out, science doesn't deal with subjective things because there is no handle on the cliff wall for it to be climbed. John Searle's Chinese room illustrates the problem. Statements can be proven impossible, which you seem to ignore. And I believe that it already has been proven that it has been proven impossible for any digital computation to explain mind.

“There you are locked in your room shuffling your Chinese symbols and passing out Chinese symbols in response to incoming Chinese symbols. On the basis of the situation as I have described it, there is no way you could learn any Chinese simply by manipulating these formal symbols.”
“Now the point of the story is simply this: by virtue of implementing a formal computer program from the point of view of an outside observer, you behave exactly as if you understood Chinese, but all the same you don't understand a word of Chinese. But if going through the appropriate computer program for understanding Chinese is not enough to give you an understanding of Chinese, then it is not enough to give any other digital computer an understanding of Chinese. And again, the reason for this can be stated quite simply. If you don't understand Chinese, then no other computer could understand Chinese because no digital computer, just by virtue of running a program, has anything that you don't have. All that the computer has, as you have, is a 'formal program for manipulating uninterpreted Chinese symbols.”

What humans have is UNDERSTANDING. As badly as I spoke Mandarin, I UNDERSTOOD what I was saying. Those sequences of sound had meaning to me and to my Chinese friends. In order to claim that science can explain the mind, one has to answer Searle's very tough challenge above, AND describe HOW one would go about verifying that the equations of consciousness have understanding.

I ask you this earlier and you dodged by silence. Please explain how you would know if the equations concerning neural nets or quantum computers actually have understanding? Don't dodge again or I will think you are not serious in this discussion. A Turing test only observes outward behavior but doesn't ensure that the AI actually understands what it is talking about.

One further thing, for a guy who claims he believes in a God, you seem to be on the wrong side of this argument acting like man is merely a machine which makes me think you haven't thought through all these issues.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks Shunya, but there really isn't a positive outcome except extended life with the cancer I now have. I am not feeling sorry for myself because I have lived an amazing life for a kid who grew up on the Sac and Fox reservation going to a four room school that was grades 1-8 in Oklahoma!

I assumed that the treatments had a purpose, I hope and pray for the positive outcome. and I did not assume it was necessarily a cure based on what I know of your history. I remain an optimist for the most part and wish you the best in your journey in this world and the next beyond human's reason light regardless.

Yes you have led an amazing life.

One further thing, for a guy who claims he believes in a God, you seem to be on the wrong side of this argument acting like man is merely a machine which makes me think you haven't thought through all these issues.

I may deal with the other issues in a separate post. This is a gross misrepresentation of my beliefs and view toward these dialogues and arguments. Absolutely NO, humans are not merely machines, and the view that science can likely explain the relationship between the brain and the mind in the future does not lead to that conclusion. Our disagreement lies at the heart of how 'Determinism' is defined and understood by philosophers, scientists, Christian apologists, and others. There is a thread I started on 'Causal Determinism' here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...al-Determinism, that addresses my objections to your view of Determinism.

By the way, there is an ongoing dispute between the Tweb oligarchy and myself, because I take Socratic skeptical view toward all beliefs even my own. They have royally mandated that I am branded with the label of 'Agnostic,' because of the nature of my skeptical views toward bad arguments, despite the fact that I am a Baha'i and believe in God. My philosophical approach to belief is indeed agnostic, because of the fact of human fallibility makes the justification of different choices of belief pen to serious doubt.

[grmorton]

Thanks for the kind words. Sometimes Frank, we don't see ourselves as we think we are projecting. My comment about the wrong side was based upon what I saw. And while I know you are not an agnostic, you might think about how you appear to others.

I would say, this is another frustrating exchange because I specifically presented why I don't feel this is a argument from ignorance, and it was ignored. And again I asked how are you to determine that the scientific explanation of consciousness will have that 'aha' feeling of understanding we are all familiar with. Again there is no answer. If we are to discuss these things, it must be a case of each of us answering the other guy's evidence. It can't be useful to engage in an exchange of "ask question---get silence. answer other guy's questions, ask new questions, get more silence"

I tired really quickly of my points not being answered and not even being mentioned. Got better things to do with my time.

[shunyadragon]

Sometimes Frank, we don't see ourselves as we think we are projecting. My comment about the wrong side was based upon what I saw. And while I know you are not an agnostic, you might think about how you appear to others.

Fellow Twebers should see me directly as I post and not read past that. I am a philosophical skeptic of all belief systems, because of the frailty of fallible human justification of a diversity of conflicting beliefs including my own. This should NOT be confused with what I believe.

I would say, this is another frustrating exchange because I specifically presented why I don't feel this is a argument from ignorance, and it was ignored. And again I asked how are you to determine that the scientific explanation of consciousness will have that 'aha' feeling of understanding we are all familiar with. Again there is no answer. If we are to discuss these things, it must be a case of each of us answering the other guy's evidence. It can't be useful to engage in an exchange of "ask question---get silence. answer other guy's questions, ask new questions, get more silence"

You should interpret my responses as a sincere disagreement and not ignoring the content of your posts.I sincerely consider nothing ultimately 'unknowable' be science the nature of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. I consider your references from Searle to be conditionally 'IF' and not deffinitive to draw conclusions to support your view. I responded in considerable detail considering my disagreement concerning your view of 'Determinism' in a separate thread. I am decidedly not ignoring you, but I decidedly disagree with you, and do my best to address this disagreement in detail.

[element771]

You should interpret my responses as a sincere disagreement and not ignoring the content of your posts.I sincerely consider nothing ultimately 'unknowable' be science the nature of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness.

You are not even paying attention to grmorton's question. No one is referring to the biology of the nature of the brain, mind, will, or consciousness.

[shunyadragon]

You are not even paying attention to grmorton's question. No one is referring to the biology of the nature of the brain, mind, will, or consciousness.

I am reading grmorton's posts. He asserts that the nature of some aspects of the mind, will and consciousnes, ie the nature of Qualia, are not possibly (unknowable) explained by science. I believe that in the future is possible that the science and biology of the brain can possibly explain all aspects of the mind, will and consciousness. That is the difference between grmorton's view and mine.

[element771]

I am reading grmorton's posts. He asserts that the nature of some aspects of the mind, will and consciousnes, ie the nature of Qualia, are not possibly (unknowable) explained by science. I believe that in the future is possible that the science and biology of the brain can possibly explain all aspects of the mind, will and consciousness. That is the difference between grmorton's view and mine.

Please explain how you would know if the equations concerning neural nets or quantum computers actually have understanding?

^^ This is what I am referring to.

[shunyadragon]

^^ This is what I am referring to.

Please explain how you would know if the equations concerning neural nets or quantum computers actually have understanding?

Your reference to this does not reflect your original question. Reasonably scientists nor I can know what science may resolve concerning this relationship in the future.

You are not even paying attention to grmorton's question. No one is referring to the biology of the nature of the brain, mind, will, or consciousness.

In answering the reference to grmorton's quote you now cite. First, scientists do not 'know' things, and defining limits on what 'equations concerning neural nets or quantum computers [can do concerning] actually having understanding.' does not address what science may falsify and demonstrate in the future concerning the relationship between the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. The limits of what science may understand in the future concerning the natural neural networks of the brain, and the nature of the mind will and consciousness cannot be reasonably described as unknowable nor limited as grmorton describes.

The primary direction of the present research is actually studying the human brain and how it interacts with the world around us, and not developing equations concerning neural nets and Quantum computers. Our brain does not function like a Quantum computer, though it may be possible for a Quantum Computer to in the future function like a brain.

[element771]

In answering the reference to grmorton's quote you now cite. First, scientists do not 'know' things,

Can we please please please drop the pretense. Would you find any issues with me saying the following...

Scientists know that the gravitational constant on Earth is 9.8 m/s^2.

This is how scientists speak to one another... I should know, I speak with scientists every day of my life. Sure it may not be technically correct but I am not giving a lecture on the philosophy of science. This is a conversation on an internet message board for Christ's sake.

and defining limits on what 'equations concerning neural nets or quantum computers [can do concerning] actually having understanding.' does not address what science may falsify and demonstrate in the future concerning the relationship between the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. The limits of what science may understand in the future concerning the natural neural networks of the brain, and the nature of the mind will and consciousness cannot be reasonably described as unknowable nor limited as grmorton describes.

These are two completely different issues. One has to do with biology and one has to do with subjective experiences.

If we understood the biology completely, we could then, in theory, simulate the biology using a neural net, quantum computer, etc. This is one issue.

The issue that this raises is whether this simulation actually has understanding or is it merely a sophisticated program that only mimics understanding. There is no way to find out BECAUSE this is inherently subjective. The only way to truly know would be to be the one experiencing this program...and that cannot happen. This is why both GRMorton and myself are able to claim that science will never be able to answer this.

Just to be clear, you keep bringing up the relationship between the mind, brain, etc ...this is NOT what we are referring to. I agree with you that science can and will ultimately understand all of this.

Do you keep bringing up the biology because you don't understand the point that we are making or are you just being difficult because you don't have an answer to our question and are too stubborn to admit that?

[shunyadragon]

These are two completely different issues. One has to do with biology and one has to do with subjective experiences.

No, the question is whether subjective experiences can possibly explained by scientific methods as related to natural explanations for the relationship between the brain and the mind, will and consciousness. The problem if you go back to grmorton's original posts is whether 'Natural Determinism' is true it terms of explaining the relationship of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. The subjective experiences like what grmorton describes as 'Qualia' need not be understood in detail and nuanced as to their subjective nature, but simply need to be explained and understood as to their nature as the relationship with the brain.

[element771]

No, the question is whether subjective experiences can possibly explained by scientific methods as related to natural explanations for the relationship between the brain and the mind, will and consciousness. The problem if you go back to grmorton's original posts is whether 'Natural Determinism' is true it terms of explaining the relationship of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. The subjective experiences like what grmorton describes as 'Qualia' need not be understood in detail and nuanced as to their subjective nature, but simply need to be explained and understood as to their nature as the relationship with the brain.

Still can't answer a simple question can you?

You don't get to dictate the question that we are posing. That is how basic conversation works. Otherwise, why do you even bother coming here?

We both posed a question. We both explained to you that you aren't answering it. We even repeated the question, yet you don't answer it.

[shunyadragon]

Still can't answer a simple question can you?

You don't get to dictate the question that we are posing. That is how basic conversation works. Otherwise, why do you even bother coming here?

We both posed a question. We both explained to you that you aren't answering it. We even repeated the question, yet you don't answer it.

Question answered. The whole subject of this dialogue is the question of the brain, and the mind and consciousness. Presenting what appears to be a bogus Münchhausen trilemma that is claimed to be unknowable is not relevant.

No, the question is whether subjective experiences can possibly explained by scientific methods as related to natural explanations for the relationship between the brain and the mind, will and consciousness. The problem if you go back to grmorton's original posts is whether 'Natural Determinism' is true it terms of explaining the relationship of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness. The subjective experiences like what grmorton describes as 'Qualia' need not be understood in detail and nuanced as to their subjective nature, but simply need to be explained and understood as to their nature as the relationship with the brain.

What would be the purpose of this line of questions concerning Qualia in the discussion of Determinism and the relationship between the brain, the mind, wil and consiousness?

[grmorton]

Fellow Twebers should see me directly as I post and not read past that. I am a philosophical skeptic of all belief systems, because of the frailty of fallible human justification of a diversity of conflicting beliefs including my own. This should NOT be confused with what I believe.

You should interpret my responses as a sincere disagreement and not ignoring the content of your posts.I sincerely consider nothing ultimately 'unknowable' be science the nature of the brain, and the mind, will and consciousness.

Well, since you can't formulate a response to arguments I put forth, I know that you are not serious about being a philosophical skeptic of all belief systems, save your own. Have a nice time. I will ignore you from now on as not worth engaging with. the rest of your response seems to think I should be able to read your mind about why you are not answering questions. This is why I left this place, a whole bunch of people who like to hear the sound of their own voice but lacking in any intellectual depth to know the issues.