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 Tassman View Post
    How could thoughts be immaterial things given that they arise from a material brain?

    As far as we know “immaterial thoughts” cease with the cessation of the material brain. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and therefore subject to scientific investigation.
    It's obvious thoughts are not physical things, you are just preconditioned ideologically to assert that all things must be caliphs.
    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
      How could thoughts be immaterial things given that they arise from a material brain?

      As far as we know “immaterial thoughts” cease with the cessation of the material brain. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and therefore subject to scientific investigation.
      No one knows the 'dependence relation' of the physical brain and consciousness or the physical brain and thoughts. As I have been saying to Jim L, thoughts are immaterial at least in some sense because more than one physical brain can realize the same thought, and also that the same thought can be realized in more than one physical medium, ie it's 'mutliply realizable.' So the thought that '1+1=2' can be realized in a human brain or in a computer or potentially in any other number of other physical mediums in alien species.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Well you did, but IÂ’m not going to argue about it.
        No. Sorry. You were the one who brought up the business about technology allowing us to post on here, which was a complete non-sequitur.



        IÂ’ve not disagreed that science and philosophy are mutually interdependent. But, in the final analysis, only science can achieve actual, tested, factual knowledge. Philosophy cannot.
        isolating one from the other is artificial and intellectually disingenuous.



        The philosophical “theoretical framework” to which you refer is actually scientific speculation grounded in existing scientific knowledge. This can result in a scientific hypothesis which is empirically tested and result in new factual knowledge of the natural world. This is how science works; philosophy is unable.
        Same old same old. You need to get some new schtick. Sorry but that's not how science works. It works within paradigms and conceptual structures. Scientists aren't just simple fact-gathering robots. Science is a conceptual, intellectual activity, not a blindly instrumental activity.



        The “theoretical framework” is the existing body of scientific knowledge which generates new hypotheses.
        No, that's not what it is. It's a conceptual gestalt that shifts the interrelation between the previously known 'facts' into a new pattern that yields new meaning.



        I know what it is, but IÂ’ll leave it for you philosophers to wrestle with. Not that philosophy can ever resolve it, only science can do that.
        With all due respect, I don't believe you do know what it means. And again, isolating one from the other is artificial and simplistic.

        Tell me how, even conceivably, the neurosciences could tell us why some particular physical function or structure is associated with conscious experience.

        Tell me why this conceivability gap exists with consciousness alone in all of science without recourse to scientistic faith or magical thinking.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Right, so different minds could basically be in the same mental state, have the same thought, 1+1=2, as well as be in similar though different mental states, have similar though different thoughts, such as the thought of a spoon. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm not getting why you think it a problem for many people to be in, or to have, the same or similar mental states/thoughts at the same time.
          I don't think its a problem because I don't have a problem with thoughts, in some sense, being immaterial things. It's a problem for materialists like Tassman.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            No one knows the 'dependence relation' of the physical brain and consciousness or the physical brain and thoughts.
            Consciousness cannot exist without a functioning material brain (we switch off the life support of brain-dead people). So, it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and therefore subject to scientific investigation.
            “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

              isolating one from the other is artificial and intellectually disingenuous.
              Not “isolating”, merely recognizing the limitations of philosophy vis-à-vis science.

              that's not how science works. It works within paradigms and conceptual structures.
              Yes. It’s called ‘the scientific method’ whereby a scientist develops hypotheses, tests them and then modifies them on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. Thus, providing the data from which to develop explanations and scientific theories and make predictions.

              No, that's not what it is. It's a conceptual gestalt that shifts the interrelation between the previously known 'facts' into a new pattern that yields new meaning.
              See above.

              Tell me how, even conceivably, the neurosciences could tell us why some particular physical function or structure is associated with conscious experience.
              Tell me how, even conceivably, science could tell us how some particular event like lightning could occur without prior knowledge of the existence of electrostatic discharges. OR how, without prior knowledge of the recently discovered Higgs boson, physical proof could be provided of an invisible, universe-wide field that gives mass to all matter. In short, this is what science does – it studies the universe in search of natural explanations as to how it functions based upon the assumption that everything in the universe is material. And it has done so very successfully.

              Tell me why this conceivability gap exists with consciousness alone in all of science
              There’s no "conceivability gap" except in your own mind. It’s the role of science to overcome such “gaps”. 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
                I don't think its a problem because I don't have a problem with thoughts, in some sense, being immaterial things. It's a problem for materialists like Tassman.
                But my question is why do you think it a problem for many people at once to be in the same "physical" mental state such as the mental state in which 1+1=2?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Consciousness cannot exist without a functioning material brain (we switch off the life support of brain-dead people). So, it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and therefore subject to scientific investigation.
                  No one knows that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning material brain. But even if that were the case, you're still missing the point. You're at the wrong level of description. Beethoven's Ninth is "in some sense" oscillations of air molecules impacting the auditory and auditory-processing functions and structures of material brains. When I think the thought: "1+1=2," at the physical level, that thought is just neurons firing in my brain, but neuronal activity does not capture the content of the thought. Neurons firing cannot be right or wrong, justified or unjustified.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Not “isolating”, merely recognizing the limitations of philosophy vis-Ã*-vis science.
                    The two interpenetrate each other regularly. Science as mere technical rectitude and proficiency has severe limitations vis-a-vis true science and philosophy. You're construing science in a very narrow, ideological way.



                    Yes. It’s called ‘the scientific method’ whereby a scientist develops hypotheses, tests them and then modifies them on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. Thus, providing the data from which to develop explanations and scientific theories and make predictions.
                    Yes, within a given paradigm. Hypotheses are not gotten directly from observations. Observations are always theory-laden. Yours is the way I thought about science when I was about twelve.



                    See above.
                    More ideological nonsense.



                    Tell me how, even conceivably, science could tell us how some particular event like lightning could occur without prior knowledge of the existence of electrostatic discharges. OR how, without prior knowledge of the recently discovered Higgs boson, physical proof could be provided of an invisible, universe-wide field that gives mass to all matter. In short, this is what science does – it studies the universe in search of natural explanations as to how it functions based upon the assumption that everything in the universe is material. And it has done so very successfully.
                    You prove my point precisely, although, based on what we've been through up to now, I seriously doubt you'll even realize it. None of these problems posed anything remotely close to a conceivability gap like the "hard problem." They are all conventional scientific problems that are or were unknowns that resolve under physical explanations. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable.

                    As far as the examples of lightning and the Higgs, of course there is an explanatory regress that's necessary but that's just a necessary part of explanation. The nature of hydrogen and oxygen had to be understood before water was understood, but there was no gap once that understanding was in place. It wouldn't make any sense for a chemist to say, "I understand hydrogen and oxygen but why is it that H2O is associated with water?"



                    There’s no "conceivability gap" except in your own mind. It’s the role of science to overcome such “gaps”. See above.
                    See above. It's NOT the role of science to overcome such gaps. Science has never overcome such a gap. That is not its job. It lacks the conceptual tools to overcome such gaps. If you don't think there is a gap, please tell me how, even in PRINCIPLE, the neurosciences and/or psychology alone could answer the 'hard problem'. Keep in mind that every other unknown in science can be answered in principle in such a way. The burden is on you to explain away this uniqueness.

                    There is a sharp distinction between actual science and the ideology of science, which is what you are purveying.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      But my question is why do you think it a problem for many people at once to be in the same "physical" mental state such as the mental state in which 1+1=2?
                      I'm not sure they would be in the 'same', ie the identical, physical state. But that might be a problem, how different physical states could be associated with the same mental state.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        No one knows that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning material brain.
                        It is a reasonable assumption that consciousness ceases upon the cessation of the brain. Hence it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and subject to scientific investigation.
                        “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
                          Science as mere technical rectitude and proficiency has severe limitations vis-a-vis true science and philosophy.
                          The “mere technical rectitude and proficiency” of science is nevertheless capable of arriving at conclusions that can be tested and shown to be true – unlike philosophy.

                          Hypotheses are not gotten directly from observations. Observations are always theory-laden.
                          Indeed. As I said.

                          None of these problems posed anything remotely close to a conceivability gap like the "hard problem." They are all conventional scientific problems that are or were unknowns that resolve under physical explanations. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable.
                          All of these problems were the same in principle as the "conceivability gap" of the “hard problem”. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable even though more mystical explanations were often preferred – e.g. a god being responsible for lightning rather than, as we now know, electrostatic discharges. There is no good reason to assume that the problem of consciousness will not be explained physically either. As far as we know conscious experience depends on physical brain activity so neuroscience should in time be able to explain it.

                          It's NOT the role of science to overcome such gaps.
                          It is precisely the role of science to “overcome” gaps in knowledge of how the material world functions. This is what science does.

                          If you don't think there is a gap, please tell me how, even in PRINCIPLE, the neurosciences and/or psychology alone could answer the 'hard problem'. Keep in mind that every other unknown in science can be answered in principle in such a way. The burden is on you to explain away this uniqueness.
                          I do not acknowledge there is a “uniqueness” to be explained away, merely an unanswered (as yet) scientific problem.
                          “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
                            I'm not sure they would be in the 'same', ie the identical, physical state. But that might be a problem, how different physical states could be associated with the same mental state.
                            Or, it may not be a problem.

                            But what exactly do you think thoughts are? Do you think they are products of the physical or products of an immaterial mind?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              It is a reasonable assumption that consciousness ceases upon the cessation of the brain. Hence it is reasonable to assume that “thoughts” are in some sense material and subject to scientific investigation.
                              This is a philosophical argument which purports to be true and factual. It can be tested by reason and shown to be "true", pending further explanation of the phrase "in some sense". Thus reason and not science CAN be the criterion for judging and testing the truth of statements, directly contradicting your continual dogmatic assertions to the contrary.

                              (Note: If consciousness ceases with cessation of brain activity, it is likely that this will never be known with a high degree of likelihood, and thus never be a true scientific datum.)

                              Thoughts construed in terms of their content are not material if they are subject to being right and wrong, justified and unjustified, if the same thought can be shared by more than one material mind, and if a thought is capable of mutiple realizability. (These again are all philosophical conclusions, can be tested by reason and logic, and are all purportedly true and factual.)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                The “mere technical rectitude and proficiency” of science is nevertheless capable of arriving at conclusions that can be tested and shown to be true – unlike philosophy.
                                Not so. See above post. You disprove this yourself continually.



                                Indeed. As I said.
                                Yes, you say that you've said it, but you don't seem to really internalize what I'm telling you, especially if it runs counter to your narrative.



                                All of these problems were the same in principle as the "conceivability gap" of the “hard problem”. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable even though more mystical explanations were often preferred – e.g. a god being responsible for lightning rather than, as we now know, electrostatic discharges. There is no good reason to assume that the problem of consciousness will not be explained physically either. As far as we know conscious experience depends on physical brain activity so neuroscience should in time be able to explain it.
                                No, there's no analogy to the 'hard problem' which indicates that you still don't understand it at all. I'm beginning to doubt that you have enough respect for any of this to take the time to try to learn it. Like a true "scientist"! Before lightning was understood, a PHYSICAL explanation was perfectly conceivable, even though not understood. Once lightning is understood as electrostatic discharge, the mystery is gone. There is no gap anymore. It makes no sense for a physicist to still ask "But why is electrostatic discharge associated with or constitute lightning?" The theory and the empirical data are in place to eliminate all mystery. The same holds with ALL unknowns in science. The underlying theoretical framework, theory, hypothesis and empirical data will discharge all mystery. There is no conceivable counter-example. Even if you don't agree with any of this, please have enough respect to try to learn a little about it, please? This is getting old.



                                It is precisely the role of science to “overcome” gaps in knowledge of how the material world functions. This is what science does.
                                Not the same thing. Google "Hard Problem." Try to learn.



                                I do not acknowledge there is a “uniqueness” to be explained away, merely an unanswered (as yet) scientific problem.
                                Yeah, I got that. Let's try something new. Let's try maybe you learning something about it.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X