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
    My point is that such statements as "that qualia aren't the experience of the physical body" have to be understood first. It's a conceptual matter. Qualia would be the experience of the physical body in what sense? What does the word 'physical' mean? Empirical data is helpful only within an already established interpretive regime. You cannot assume the regime that favors your interpretation without begging the question and 'putting your thumb on the scale.'
    It is understood that qualia is an emergent experience derived of the complex nature of the physical, but there is no evidence that shows this emergent experience is a thing new and distinct from the physical itself.
    This is a question about the extent of scientific knowledge. Tassman assumes going into this dispute that the only 'evidence' that could possibly matter to him would be scientific evidence. Do you see a problem with that assumption? So he's already assuming the outcome of the dispute from the beginning. He's 'rigging the game.' He cannot or will not see that point because he's already decided by fiat and without argument that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge. Perhaps you can see it? Like saying "In deciding the outcome of the game between our team and your team, we'll appoint the refs, because everybody knows that our team is the only arbiter of truth."
    I don't think science has come to any absolute conclusions concerning the nature of consciousness, but again, there is no evidence for the philosophical belief that consciousness is something distinct from the physical. Philosophy is great, and can lead to true knowledge, scientists are philosophers as well, but philosophy itself isn't knowledge.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      What I am “typing on here” is the result of technology grounded in scientific methodology – NOT philosophical argument. Scientific facts are multiply tested and make testable predictions which to all intents and purposes are true.
      Again, your woeful ignorance of the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Of course what we are typing on here would be impossible without technology and the supporting scientific research. I've never contested any of that, which of course has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with anything I am saying. Your point has to do with the medium of our messages, but my point, of course, was about the content of our messages. The content of your messages is philosophical in nature. The message immediately above is philosophical in nature. Since you apparently have trouble processing simple information, let me repeat: the message immediately above is philosophical in nature.



      What is MORE than a “tad arrogant” is your claim that only philosophy can arrive at truth when clearly it cannot. Its conclusions cannot be tested, unlike the conclusions of science which have given us computers and put a man on the moon.
      And where did I ever say that 'only philosophy' can arrive at truth? What I am saying is more than a tad arrogant is the fact that you don't seem to feel that you need to trouble yourself to actually, you know, try to 'understand' the position that you're critiquing. That you're so absolutely certain of the fact that science is the only way to truth that this certainty immunizes you from having to actually understand any alternative viewpoint.

      Prove to me that you've learned what the 'hard problem' is first. Prove to me that you can actually learn something new, something other than your easy scientistic orthodoxy that you've been peddling on here for years and then maybe we can talk.



      And you think philosophy can? It cannot. Nor do we know that science will not be able to explain “why or how any function is associated with consciousness” - especially given the advances in the various neurosciences. Science will probably fully explain consciousness in due course - philosophy will never be able to.
      That's an extremely simplistic picture of the field. There's no simple line of demarcation between 'science' and 'philosophy', particularly at the speculative edges in areas like cosmology and consciousness. It cannot be resolved into simple instrumental terms of technical 'functional' success on the model of psychology and the neurosciences as they've been operating up to now. Philosophical speculations and conclusions combined with scientific research will probably have to lay out the conceptual landscape in which future research will occur if the 'hard problem' is to be cracked.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        It is understood that qualia is an emergent experience derived of the complex nature of the physical, but there is no evidence that shows this emergent experience is a thing new and distinct from the physical itself.
        It's not understood. No one has a complete grasp of it. Even the emergence is not understood, whether it's 'strong' or 'weak.' And 'new' and 'distinct' in what ways? Causally? Ontologically?

        I don't think science has come to any absolute conclusions concerning the nature of consciousness, but again, there is no evidence for the philosophical belief that consciousness is something distinct from the physical. Philosophy is great, and can lead to true knowledge, scientists are philosophers as well, but philosophy itself isn't knowledge.
        Philosophy is knowledge. Why would you think it isn't? Logic and ethics are knowledge. Some inductive and metaphysical generalizations are too. I agree that scientists are also philosophers, true scientists and not just technicians. Everyone philosophizes all the time.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Of course what we are typing on here would be impossible without technology and the supporting scientific research. I've never contested any of that, which of course has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with anything I am saying. Your point has to do with the medium of our messages, but my point, of course, was about the content of our messages.
          Then why mention the "medium of our messages” in the first place it was not necessary to make your point about philosophical "content".

          That you're so absolutely certain of the fact that science is the only way to truth that this certainty immunizes you from having to actually understand any alternative viewpoint.
          This is your strawman. Philosophy has its uses as I’ve acknowledged repeatedly and science itself is grounded in metaphysical naturalism. But achieving actual, tested, factual knowledge is the role of science, NOT philosophy.

          Prove to me that you've learned what the 'hard problem' is first.
          Your much vaunted “hard problem” is a philosophical question which can never be resolved by philosophical argumentation alone. Given that there no actual evidence for consciousness other than the physical activity of the brain it is an issue that can only be resolved by the various physical neurosciences. Not by purely academic discourse.

          There's no simple line of demarcation between 'science' and 'philosophy',
          The "simple line of demarcation between 'science' and 'philosophy'” is when it comes to the empirical testing of the speculations, theories and hypotheses of philosophy in order to arrive at factual evidence.
          “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
            Given that there no actual evidence for consciousness other than the physical activity of the brain it is an issue that can only be resolved by the various physical neurosciences.
            Of course we have actual evidence for consciousness besides the physical activity of the brain. The very fact that we experience consciousness is immeasurably stronger evidence for consciousness than any measurement of physical activity of the brain. And this experience of consciousness is something that is unaccessible by your highly vaunted empirical sciences.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Many materialists do not believe that thoughts have a causal role in any sense, they are in effect epiphenomenal. To quote T.H. Huxley:

              "Consciousness would appear to be related to the mechanism of the body simply as a collateral product of its working, and to be as completely without any power of modifying that working as the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery..."

              What he refereed to as "conscious automata."

              In other words our thoughts have no real effect on behavior. This seems like a way to counter any form of dualism. But it seems to be that immaterial thoughts do play a causal role in behavior, this I believe is obvious in everyday experience.
              Well, of course thoughts have a causal effect, but the problem is in the premise, you're assuming that thoughts are immaterial things that have a causal effect on the physical.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Then why mention the "medium of our messages” in the first place it was not necessary to make your point about philosophical "content".
                I didn't. You did by implication by going into the technological underpinnings that make our posting on here possible. I was merely pointing you back to the actual subject matter at hand, namely, the content of what we are writing.



                This is your strawman. Philosophy has its uses as IÂ’ve acknowledged repeatedly and science itself is grounded in metaphysical naturalism. But achieving actual, tested, factual knowledge is the role of science, NOT philosophy.
                As I've repeatedly pointed out, your caricature is much more simplistic than the reality. Science and philosophy pervade each other continually and each is impossible without the other. Scientists must draw philosophical conclusions on a regular basis. You are continually making philosophical points on here which you claim to be true and factual and which fail to be strictly grounded in observation statements.



                Your much vaunted “hard problem” is a philosophical question which can never be resolved by philosophical argumentation alone. Given that there no actual evidence for consciousness other than the physical activity of the brain it is an issue that can only be resolved by the various physical neurosciences. Not by purely academic discourse.
                I never said it could be resolved by philosophical argumentation alone. But given the fact that no one has a clue what the research is supposed to yield or even what theoretical framework the research is supposed to proceed under (unlike any other research problem in science), the problem must remain primarily conceptual FOR NOW. Until some conceptual clarity, in concert with research data, comes to light, that is the best we can do. Empirical research is not ruled out, but without a theoretical framework, it is like asking for research into evidence for clues of an unknown and unspecified crime.



                The "simple line of demarcation between 'science' and 'philosophy'” is when it comes to the empirical testing of the speculations, theories and hypotheses of philosophy in order to arrive at factual evidence.
                This sentence makes no sense. You're missing a dependent clause. Without a theoretical framework is like missing an overall conceptual architecture. Science proceeds under conceptual structures, assumptions, theories and frameworks undergirding theories. It's not just simple fact-gathering. It's more intellectually sophisticated than that. Real scientists are intellectuals and philosophers; they're not just meter-readers and technicians.

                So I ask you again: Are you or are you not going to learn what the "Hard Problem" is?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Well, of course thoughts have a causal effect, but the problem is in the premise, you're assuming that thoughts are immaterial things that have a causal effect on the physical.
                  But how could thoughts be material things and also be what we think they are, namely, thoughts, with the content we think they have? I can have the same thought that you have at the same time, say that Austin is the capital of Texas. How can that thought be a physical thing if the very same thought's in many heads at the very same time?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    But how could thoughts be material things and also be what we think they are, namely, thoughts, with the content we think they have? I can have the same thought that you have at the same time, say that Austin is the capital of Texas. How can that thought be a physical thing if the very same thought's in many heads at the very same time?
                    I'd suggest the same way as a spoon in Austin Texas is the same as a spoon in Boston Ma. We can all own a similar spoon and we can all own similar mental states.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      I'd suggest the same way as a spoon in Austin Texas is the same as a spoon in Boston Ma. We can all own a similar spoon and we can all own similar mental states.
                      But the spoon I own, although very similar to yours, is not identical to yours. What I am saying is that my belief that Austin is the capital of Texas, the propositional content, is identical to the content of your belief that Austin is the capital of Texas. In the same way that my belief that 1+1=2 is identical to your belief that 1+1=2.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                        But the spoon I own, although very similar to yours, is not identical to yours. What I am saying is that my belief that Austin is the capital of Texas, the propositional content, is identical to the content of your belief that Austin is the capital of Texas. In the same way that my belief that 1+1=2 is identical to your belief that 1+1=2.
                        Why can't mental states, be either the same in different heads, such as Austin is the capital of Texas, or, 1+1=2, or be different such as mental states concerning different types of spoons?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Why can't mental states, be either the same in different heads, such as Austin is the capital of Texas, or, 1+1=2, or be different such as mental states concerning different types of spoons?
                          I think they can be. It's the difference between 'token' (as in a particular physical spoon) and 'type' (the design or specifications of that type of spoon).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            I didn't. You did by implication by going into the technological underpinnings that make our posting on here possible. I was merely pointing you back to the actual subject matter at hand, namely, the content of what we are writing.
                            Well you did, but I’m not going to argue about it.

                            Science and philosophy pervade each other continually and each is impossible without the other. Scientists must draw philosophical conclusions on a regular basis.
                            I’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.

                            I never said it could be resolved by philosophical argumentation alone.

                            Empirical research is not ruled out, but without a theoretical framework, it is like asking for research into evidence for clues of an unknown and unspecified crime.
                            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.

                            This sentence makes no sense. You're missing a dependent clause. Without a theoretical framework is like missing an overall conceptual architecture.
                            The “theoretical framework” is the existing body of scientific knowledge which generates new hypotheses.

                            So I ask you again: Are you or are you not going to learn what the "Hard Problem" is?
                            I know what it is, but I’ll leave it for you philosophers to wrestle with. Not that philosophy can ever resolve it, only science can do that.
                            “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 how could thoughts be material things
                              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.
                              “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 think they can be. It's the difference between 'token' (as in a particular physical spoon) and 'type' (the design or specifications of that type of spoon).
                                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.

                                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