Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Are Thoughts Causal?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Again: the theoretical framework for scientific explanations works for a dependence-relation of macro-properties upon micro-properties. Every scientific explanation, even those not currently understood or clearly formulated, is resolvable in principle under this type of dependence-relation. No one currently has a clue how consciousness could be explained under this scheme. You say that in due course, there will be discovered a "direct connection between consciounsess and physical activity in the brain." But what do you mean by that? Do you mean a causal explanation, like a "consciousness engine" in the brain? But even if that were discovered, how would that close the explanatory gap I'm referring to? What conceivable fact or set of facts could there be about that engine that could carry within it the answer to why it causes conscious experience? What, in logical or physical or mental space, could there be about such a phenomenon that could be decisive in closure of this gap, unlike, again, every other scientific unknown. The burden is upon you, since you are the one so confidently proclaiming the likely success of science in this field, to tell us, at least in broad strokes, in terms of conceivability, what such a solution might be like.
    Basically, your argument seems to be that consciousness being directly related to the physical activity of the brain is inconceivable because philosophy says it is. But naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena have frequently born fruit, especially in the future where research will undoubtedly uncover more information. I remind you that nearly every philosophical argument and conclusion Aristotle made about physical science was wrong and misguided.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      The burden is on YOU, the reductionist. I am arguing against reductionism. Jim L keeps asking me questions I am only speculating about. You are the one with the case to prove up.
      Your position, namely that immaterial “conscious experience” connects with the “psychological and neurological” material brain is incoherent. There is no nexus. Hence the burden of proof rests with you.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Okay, so what is the empirical evidence of immaterial consciousness?
        the experience of consciousnesses far exceeds any physical capacity,I have an infinite number of memories of
        Dallas Texas but I dont have a city in my head. The Cartesian creature that plays in my mind is clearly not physical. I cn have ideas of things that don;t exist and have never been seen,
        Last edited by metacrock; 04-06-2020, 01:02 PM.
        Metacrock's Blog


        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          So, would you say that the sub- or unconscious functions of the brain, lets say dreams, exist as immaterial things as well? And how would you define memories that are unconsciously stored in the brain?
          you think memoirs are physical? then you should be able to remove them by operating. they should split your head open because they are unlimited.,
          Metacrock's Blog


          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Basically, your argument seems to be that consciousness being directly related to the physical activity of the brain is inconceivable because philosophy says it is. But naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena have frequently born fruit, especially in the future where research will undoubtedly uncover more information.
            That is argument from analogy which is fallacious. It is totally irrelevant that other issues have been resolved, That proves nothing about this.


            I remind you that nearly every philosophical argument and conclusion Aristotle made about physical science was wrong and misguided.
            that is completely irrelevant, You are arguing that your positron must be true because you support a certain category of thought and us a fallacy and proves nothing Our position has noting to do with Aristotle. you are arguing some philosophical ideas are wrong therefore all philosophical ideas are wrong,

            Your reductionism is a philosophical idea
            Metacrock's Blog


            The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

            The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Your position, namely that immaterial “conscious experience” connects with the “psychological and neurological” material brain is incoherent. There is no nexus. Hence the burden of proof rests with you.
              All knowledge of consciousnesses is incomplete. You position is as much theoretical as ours.
              Metacrock's Blog


              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Basically, your argument seems to be that consciousness being directly related to the physical activity of the brain is inconceivable because philosophy says it is. But naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena have frequently born fruit, especially in the future where research will undoubtedly uncover more information. I remind you that nearly every philosophical argument and conclusion Aristotle made about physical science was wrong and misguided.
                Once again, you fundamentally misunderstand my argument. I am NOT arguing that it is inconceivable that "consciousness (is) directly related to the physical activity of the brain." This is NOT the argument. The argument is that conscious experience is not reducible to physics or physical concepts. It does not seem to be a spatio-temporal or mathematical entity. Once again, science deals with causes and causal dispositions. You are making a causal argument. Even if the brain causes consciousness, consciousness does not seem reducible to the ontology of the brain or any other physical thing,because experiences lack structural and functional expression. Even if the causal mechanism for consciousness is found, how is it that this link could be anything other than contingent? The link in every other scientific identity is necessary, eg H2O and water, DNA and life, etc. The contingency I refer to indicates that there is probably something missing in our physical picture of the natural world, some nexus we cannot see that provides the necessary link between conscious experience and its underlying cause.

                Physical ontology was a useful heuristic in the 17th century to describe, from a third-person perspective, the natural world devoid of conscious points of view. But the natural world includes first person points of view which physicalism with its third-person perspective is singularly ill-equipped to deal with. It is likely that a new paradigm is needed, somewhat like when the mechanical, action-at-a-distance, paradigm had to give way to a new understanding that included electromagnetism and fields as a fundamental entity.

                The Aristotle analogy is not apt, as I have already pointed out, because he was making incorrect empirical claims. His metaphysical claims are still taken seriously. We are not having a debate about the content of physical science but, once again, a metaphysical and epistemological debate about the proper scope of physical science.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Your position, namely that immaterial “conscious experience” connects with the “psychological and neurological” material brain is incoherent. There is no nexus. Hence the burden of proof rests with you.
                  No. Once again, my argument is that conscious experience is NOT reducible to physics or physical concepts. You are the one making the positive assertion. You are saying it IS reducible to physics. The burden is on you to prove that it is. I only have to show that you are wrong. You are asserting that "X is the case." I am saying "X is not the case." You are the prosecution. I am the defense.

                  Comment


                  • Excellent posts Jim B. devastating.
                    Metacrock's Blog


                    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post

                      The Aristotle analogy is not apt, as I have already pointed out, because he was making incorrect empirical claims. His metaphysical claims are still taken seriously. We are not having a debate about the content of physical science but, once again, a metaphysical and epistemological debate about the proper scope of physical science.
                      The Aristotle analogy is perfectly “apt”. You too are making an unwarranted empirical claim based upon untestable metaphysical conclusions, that there is an immaterial component to the universe. This has not been shown to be true by science and metaphysics (unlike science) does not have the mechanism to show whether or not this is true.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        No. Once again, my argument is that conscious experience is NOT reducible to physics or physical concepts. You are the one making the positive assertion. You are saying it IS reducible to physics. The burden is on you to prove that it is. I only have to show that you are wrong. You are asserting that "X is the case." I am saying "X is not the case." You are the prosecution. I am the defense.
                        The reverse is true. It is you who is arguing that “conscious experience” is immaterial” and that the “psychological and neurological” is material. Therefore, it is up to you to explain how a material entity such as the physical brain can connect with your hypothesized immaterial consciousness. Where is the nexus? Without one your argument is incoherent?
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The Aristotle analogy is perfectly “apt”. You too are making an unwarranted empirical claim based upon untestable metaphysical conclusions, that there is an immaterial component to the universe. This has not been shown to be true by science and metaphysics (unlike science) does not have the mechanism to show whether or not this is true.
                          Again, you fundamentally misunderstand my point. I am not making an empirical claim. I am making a claim about the epistemic domain of physical science. I am not claiming that there is an immaterial component to the universe. There may or may not be. The point is that we do not know how to frame the question. It is fundamentally a framing problem, not an empirical problem. It's not a problem of needing to gather more facts, but in understanding what facts we need to gather.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The reverse is true. It is you who is arguing that “conscious experience” is immaterial” and that the “psychological and neurological” is material. Therefore, it is up to you to explain how a material entity such as the physical brain can connect with your hypothesized immaterial consciousness. Where is the nexus? Without one your argument is incoherent?
                            But not necessarily an immaterial substance, like a soul stuff. Just because something is not physical doesn't mean it's a non-physical substance. Substance dualism is only one possibility, as are various forms of idealism. Substance monism would mean that everything is one substance or stuff but presents under two aspects, physical and mental. No nexus is needed if everything is essentially one thing. If emergence is the case, then information is as likely a nexus as anything. But this is all speculation and a diversion form the main argument, which I've repeated many times...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              Again, you fundamentally misunderstand my point. I am not making an empirical claim. I am making a claim about the epistemic domain of physical science.
                              The “epistemic domain” of the scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge. This has characterized the development of science since its advent, three centuries ago.

                              I am not claiming that there is an immaterial component to the universe. There may or may not be.
                              The assumption of science is that there is no immaterial component to the universe. Not that there "may or may not be".

                              The point is that we do not know how to frame the question.
                              Science knows exactly how to frame the question. See above.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                But not necessarily an immaterial substance, like a soul stuff. Just because something is not physical doesn't mean it's a non-physical substance.
                                It is ALL ‘material’ unless you are going in for Aristotle’s tortuous ‘accidents and substance’ nonsense, which BTW is what justifies the RC doctrine of ‘transubstantiation.’ This is when the “accidents” of the bread” become the “substance” of the body of Christ following a priestly incantation.

                                Substance dualism is only one possibility, as are various forms of idealism. Substance monism would mean that everything is one substance or stuff but presents under two aspects, physical and mental. No nexus is needed if everything is essentially one thing. If emergence is the case, then information is as likely a nexus as anything. But this is all speculation.
                                Yes, it is “all speculation” and can never be otherwise because, as I’ve repeated endlessly, philosophy has no sound method for testing its arguments. For this you need science - and science does not accept the incoherent notion of material/immaterial dualism.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                52 responses
                                216 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                345 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 08-29-2023, 08:00 AM
                                272 responses
                                1,517 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X