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

  • Quote 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.

    ;
    T:
    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.
    So your argument is that science doesn't have an "“epistemic domain” because it's empirical?

    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".
    No not true. Science doesbnot rule out the mind. It does not rule out immaterial anything. It merely demands it be demonstrated in certain ways. Those ways are antithetical to the thing being claimed oi;ts self defeating, That is a problem for science not for me.



    The point is that we do not know how to frame the question.
    Science knows exactly how to frame the question. See above.
    O I am sure you dont. but I do
    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
      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.
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      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.
      You failed to answer his statement, what you said has nothing to do with his argument,

      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.
      Yes it does It's called logic. science has no method of testing arguments science is not about arguments. Testing hypothesis are not necessarily the same testing arguments
      Last edited by metacrock; 04-08-2020, 02:35 AM.
      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
        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 agree, but I'm afraid you have you to establish how those facts apply to this particular case. You simply keep repeating the same 'faith-in-science' dogma without ever establishing any actual argument or reasons for why that dogma applies to this particular case. I have established actual arguments and reasons for the disanalogy between your position and the case of conscious experience. You offer absolutely no argument or reasons for the analogy other than the past successes of, and your faith in, science. You have to do better than merely relying on the prestige of science.



        The assumption of science is that there is no immaterial component to the universe. Not that there "may or may not be".
        Yes, for all phenomena that can be analyzed scientifically, so that assumption is self-ratifying and self-confirming. This is a perfect example of your circular reasoning. The question we are considering here is whether or not there is something that is real that nevertheless does not fall within the strict purview of science. That is by definition not a scientific question

        Thoughts and ideas cannot be entirely material for all the reasons I have previously cited.



        Science knows exactly how to frame the question. See above.
        Yes, as a scientific question. It has no idea how to frame it as a meta-scientific question (See above) which I can already anticipate your knee-jerk response to: ""Meta-scientific question" is nonsense! There are no questions beyond science! How do we know? Why, just ask science!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          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.
          Aristotle's 'accidents and substance" have not been deemed 'nonsense' simply because of possible misapplications. That might reveal more about your reasoning process (guilt through misapplication) than it does about Aristotle.



          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.
          And as I've repeated endlessly, philosophy CAN test its arguments through logic and reason. Science alone cannot deal with extra-scientific questions such as the scope of scientific inquiry. Science cannot deal with metaphysical questions because it is a methodology which depends upon metaphysical assumptions. Science is not equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' among metaphysical positions, only what is or is not aligned with its methodology.
          Last edited by Jim B.; 04-08-2020, 02:04 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Aristotle's 'accidents and substance" have not been deemed 'nonsense' simply because of possible misapplications. That might reveal more about your reasoning process (guilt through misapplication) than it does about Aristotle.





            And as I've repeated endlessly, philosophy CAN test its arguments through logic and reason. Science alone cannot deal with extra-scientific questions such as the scope of scientific inquiry. Science cannot deal with metaphysical questions because it is a methodology which depends upon metaphysical assumptions. Science is not equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' among metaphysical positions, only what is or is not aligned with its methodology.
            I think, Jim, that it is your assumtion that the nature of the mind is a metaphysical question. Just because science hasn't answered a question doesn't mean that it's extra scientific, and lies beyond it's reach. Logic and reason alone can not affirm your conclusion concerning the nature of mind and consciousness. How could a particle possibly be a wave,? As far as I can can tell, we don't know, but science, beyond all logic and reason, affirmed that it is.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Aristotle's 'accidents and substance" have not been deemed 'nonsense' simply because of possible misapplications.
              The concept of 'accidents and substance' is “deemed nonsense” because there is no good evidence to support it – merely a metaphysical argument that cannot be shown to be true, as with ALL metaphysical arguments.

              And as I've repeated endlessly, philosophy CAN test its arguments through logic and reason.
              Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” tests nothing.

              Science is not equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' among metaphysical positions, only what is or is not aligned with its methodology.
              Science is the only discipline equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' in the material word. There is no sound argument that can show the existence of an immaterial world, merely metaphysical speculation.
              “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 concept of 'accidents and substance' is “deemed nonsense” because there is no good evidence to support it – merely a metaphysical argument that cannot be shown to be true, as with ALL metaphysical arguments.
                stop your ideological banter, You do not understand the issues upon which you pontificate. you hqve no idea what the basis for talk about substance is.

                Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” tests nothing.

                since you know nothing about logic you have no right to make that assessment, you clearly know nothing about argument. Argument is the domain of logic and reason not empirical proof. The fact that you ignore my arguments proves you know nothing,


                [QUOTE]Science is the only discipline equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' in the material word.
                [QUOTE]

                Clearly BS. "coherent is NOT a matter of empirical data nut of logic and reason. So to say loigc and reason are not the standard in terms of logic and reasons is clearly a contradiction.


                There is no sound argument that can show the existence of an immaterial world, merely metaphysical speculation.

                Hey you just tried to prove that logic a matter of empirical observation rather than rules of logic and that means I can;t trust your assessment,so You are going to prove you can disprove some arguments,
                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
                  I think, Jim, that it is your assumtion that the nature of the mind is a metaphysical question. Just because science hasn't answered a question doesn't mean that it's extra scientific, and lies beyond it's reach. Logic and reason alone can not affirm your conclusion concerning the nature of mind and consciousness. How could a particle possibly be a wave,? As far as I can can tell, we don't know, but science, beyond all logic and reason, affirmed that it is.
                  Logic and reason alone have disproved the arguments you and others have been singing in this discussion, that is all it must do right here and now
                  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
                    The concept of 'accidents and substance' is “deemed nonsense” because there is no good evidence to support it – merely a metaphysical argument that cannot be shown to be true, as with ALL metaphysical arguments.
                    So you are a logical positivist; logical positivism has been demonstrated to be internally incoherent and cannot meet its own criteria of knowledge. Strange how you have never answered that particular charge, possibly because you don't understand it and because you don't have a ready dogmatic response for it.

                    Again, you have to answer my particular argument for why conscious experience does nor reduce to physical concepts. Relying on "Science has always solved mysteries like this one in the past" is not good enough. You have to come up with an actual argument and actual reasons, and not ust hide behind a huge placard that says "But...but... SCIENCE!!!"



                    Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” tests nothing.
                    Yes, of course, because it doesn't meet YOUR scientific standards, which again are self-confirming circular-reasoning standards. I'm trying, to no avail, to break your magic circle of "reasoning" and see if you can come up with an actual, honest-to-goodness argument for once!



                    Science is the only discipline equipped to tell us what is or is not 'coherent' in the material word. There is no sound argument that can show the existence of an immaterial world, merely metaphysical speculation.
                    Same scientistic hymn, 700th verse.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      I think, Jim, that it is your assumtion that the nature of the mind is a metaphysical question. Just because science hasn't answered a question doesn't mean that it's extra scientific, and lies beyond it's reach. Logic and reason alone can not affirm your conclusion concerning the nature of mind and consciousness. How could a particle possibly be a wave,? As far as I can can tell, we don't know, but science, beyond all logic and reason, affirmed that it is.
                      That's not analogous, Jim. I don't know how closely you've been following the discussion so far, but one of my main points is that what is "physical" is analyzable in terms of structure and function. The particle/wave problem is analyzable, at least in principle, in those terms, as are all other unsolved problems in science. Conscious experience, on the other hand, doesn't have a structural or functional expression. And it is essentially a first-person, not a third-person, phenomenon, unlike any other scientific subject, with a distinct ontology. When consciousness is reduced to a third-person phenomenon for scientific analysis, the essential aspect is lost. It is essentially an intrinsic, not an extrinsic thing. Science studies extrinsic things.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        you have to answer my particular argument for why conscious experience does nor reduce to physical concepts. Relying on "Science has always solved mysteries like this one in the past" is not good enough.
                        You have no particular argument. Merely a non-evidenced, reason-based metaphysical assumption that consciousness and intellect must be more than the physical activity of the brain

                        Yes, of course, because it doesn't meet YOUR scientific standards,
                        Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” doesn’t meet ANY standards. Certainly not sufficient to circumvent scientific research about the nature of consciousness - or anything else.
                        “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
                          That's not analogous, Jim. I don't know how closely you've been following the discussion so far, but one of my main points is that what is "physical" is analyzable in terms of structure and function. The particle/wave problem is analyzable, at least in principle, in those terms, as are all other unsolved problems in science.
                          Of course, its analogous. The Higgs boson or the simultaneous dual nature of light - or any of the many other applications of quantum mechanics defy the reasoning of metaphysical logic.

                          Conscious experience, on the other hand, doesn't have a structural or functional expression. And it is essentially a first-person, not a third-person, phenomenon, unlike any other scientific subject, with a distinct ontology. When consciousness is reduced to a third-person phenomenon for scientific analysis, the essential aspect is lost. It is essentially an intrinsic, not an extrinsic thing. Science studies extrinsic things.
                          Not so. “Newly developed techniques for measuring brain activity are enabling scientists to refine their theories about what consciousness is, how it forms in the brain and where the boundaries lie between being conscious and unconscious. And as our understanding of consciousness improves, some researchers are beginning to build strategies for its manipulation, with the possibility of treating brain injuries, phobias and mental-health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and schizophrenia”.

                          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

                          In short, science is well on the way to understanding the physical nature of consciousness and its origins in the material brain.
                          “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
                            You have no particular argument. Merely a non-evidenced, reason-based metaphysical assumption that consciousness and intellect must be more than the physical activity of the brain



                            Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” doesn’t meet ANY standards. Certainly not sufficient to circumvent scientific research about the nature of consciousness - or anything else.
                            You have not answered my arguments. I demonstrated that you don't know logic or science,your take on iciness is just ideological slogans, If you don;t answer argument you lose them
                            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
                              Of course, its analogous. The Higgs boson or the simultaneous dual nature of light - or any of the many other applications of quantum mechanics defy the reasoning of metaphysical logic.
                              That is not proof it;s a slogan you are going to have to demonstrate some of these theories. just because you can attack one idea does not prove that all metaphysical thinking is like that, Scheme is metaphysical.

                              Science is not about proving it;s about disproving, you must disprove hypotheses. You have not disprove anything, you make genetic fallacy,



                              Not so. “Newly developed techniques for measuring brain activity are enabling scientists to refine their theories about what consciousness is, how it forms in the brain and where the boundaries lie between being conscious and unconscious. And as our understanding of consciousness improves, some researchers are beginning to build strategies for its manipulation, with the possibility of treating brain injuries, phobias and mental-health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and schizophrenia”.


                              https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1

                              In short, science is well on the way to understanding the physical nature of consciousness and its origins in the material brain.
                              nothing you quoted said well on its way. You also offered no data to prove that they are talking about the same things. My evidence fron reearchersin thfied shows thatthe assumptions made by toseusingthismethod ruoesout any benfiitfron thentehod, itis ef ratioiniaizinnethod,

                              Raymond Tallis was a professor of Geriatric medicine at University of Manchester, and researcher, who retired in 2006 to devote himself to philosophy and writing. Tallis denounces what he calls “neurohype,” “the claims made on behalf of neuroscience in areas outside those in which it has any kind of explanatory power….”[8]

                              The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic.[9]


                              Specifically Tallis has refernce to experiments where the brain is scanned while the subject does some activity and the differences are attributed to some structure in that part of the brain. Tallis is highly skeptical of this method.


                              Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!)[10]


                              Hal Pashler’s study, University of California, San Diego is discussed in an an editorial in New Scientist, he is quoted as saying “In most of the studies that linked brain regions to feelings including social rejection, neuroticism and jealousy, researchers … used a method that inflates the strength of the link between a brain region and the emotion of behaviour.”[11]

                              While no empirical data proves reducibility, some empirical data seems to support irreducibility. The mind cannot be reduced to the brain alone.

                              Some empirical data supports claim:
                              Irreducibility


                              There are, however, empirical data that imply that brain is not necessary to mind. One such datum is the humble amoeba. They swim; they find food they learn, they multiply, all without brains or brain cell connections.[12]

                              [8] Raymond Tallis New Haumanist.org.uk Ideas for Godless People (blog—online researche) volume 124 Issue 6 (Nov/Dec 2009) URL: http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrash visited 5/9/12
                              [9] ibid
                              [10] ibid
                              [11] quoted by Tallis, ibid.
                              [12] Science Research Foundation, “Science at the horizon of life,” independent charitable organization in UK 2007-2012. On-line resource, UFL: http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200 visisted 5/2/12
                              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
                                You have no particular argument. Merely a non-evidenced, reason-based metaphysical assumption that consciousness and intellect must be more than the physical activity of the brain
                                I have put forward several arguments that you have shown no evidence for even comprehending, let alone addressing. Your lack of comprehension is evidenced in your continual reference to what you assume is my position as being that 'consciousness must be more than the physical activity of the brain.'


                                Testing an argument that has been arrived at solely via “logic and reason” by another argument based solely on “logic and reason” doesn’t meet ANY standards. Certainly not sufficient to circumvent scientific research about the nature of consciousness - or anything else.
                                Again, your dogmatism and lack of intellectual rigor is showing. I never claimed that an argument can be confirmed solely via logic and reason, but that in some cases logic and reason can be the decisive criterion. I've made this observation several times, but I'll make it again: The comment you made immediately above is a philosophical argument, not a strict scientific claim; it cannot be verified scientifically; it depends decisively for its persuasiveness on logic and reason. Scientific knowledge has its limits: it depends for its operation on certain metaphysical assumptions. Self-evident phenomenal claims are not scientific. Value claims are not scientific. Logical positivism makes claims that fail to meet its own standards of verification.

                                Take the argument that thoughts have an immaterial aspect. This is a philosophical argument that turns decisively on logic and reason. If thoughts had no immaterial aspect, if they were completely material, no two material brains could think the 'same' thought simultaneously. But this is clearly not the case. Also, there would be no aspect to thoughts that would be 'right' or 'wrong', 'justified' or 'unjustified', since these categories do not apply to material objects. And if thoughts had no immaterial aspect, the 'same thought' could not possibly take place in any material medium other than a human brain, ruling out multiple realizability, which is highly implausible, given the great advances in AI and the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
                                Last edited by Jim B.; 04-11-2020, 03:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                50 responses
                                209 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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