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
    I don't have to have an "idea of consciousness" to argue that physical reduction of consciousness doesn't work. How does a physical thing being conscious work? No one has any idea. Science can solve the "easy problem," not the "hard problem" which is conceptual in nature, not empirical, imho.
    So, is your argument basically that you have no idea in either case? Is it a sort of consciousness of the gaps argument?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      So, is your argument basically that you have no idea in either case? Is it a sort of consciousness of the gaps argument?
      Your posts make a compelling case for being able to function without any awareness.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        So, is your argument basically that you have no idea in either case? Is it a sort of consciousness of the gaps argument?
        No, it's that there are compelling arguments for why consciousness does not reduce to physical concepts.
        Last edited by Jim B.; 03-23-2020, 03:20 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          As I have repeatedly acknowledged scientific methodology is grounded in the “philosophical observation” of Metaphysical Naturalism and its correlate of Methodological Naturalism. What CAN be shown to be true is the empirical testing and resultant technology grounded in the laws and constants of nature as revealed NOT by philosophy but science.
          And as I have repeatedly pointed out, YOU are making philosophical observations all the time which you tacitly claim to be true and factual. Therefore the truth claims for empirical findings is meaningless in this context because it can't be exhaustive of all truth claims, if what you are writing on here is meant to be taken seriously. Empirical testing leads to one kind of truth but not the only one. This is basically a debate about the epistemic scope of science.


          Again: There is absolutely no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain. You can witter on all you like about solving your “hard problem” but philosophy alone does not have the methodology to do this. It is unable to test whether or not its conclusions are true.
          Again, you exhibit no actual evidence for understanding the hard problem. It has nothing to do with there being "actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain."

          Science is equipped to investigate the "Easy Problem" of consciousness, which is how the various functions associated with consciousness are performed. But the functional kind of explanation isn't suited to answering the "Hard Problem" which is: Why is the performance of this function (whatever function is being investigated) associated with conscious experience? No amount of scientific data could conceivably fill in this explanatory gap, which is unlike any other explanatory gap in science. Every other 'unknown' in science could conceivably be easily filled in with more experimental data. It is up to the reductionist to explain the absolute uniqueness of consciousness without resort to special pleading.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Science is equipped to investigate the "Easy Problem" of consciousness, which is how the various functions associated with consciousness are performed. But the functional kind of explanation isn't suited to answering the "Hard Problem" which is: Why is the performance of this function (whatever function is being investigated) associated with conscious experience? No amount of scientific data could conceivably fill in this explanatory gap, which is unlike any other explanatory gap in science. Every other 'unknown' in science could conceivably be easily filled in with more experimental data. It is up to the reductionist to explain the absolute uniqueness of consciousness without resort to special pleading.
            I'm gonna do a prediction here. Tassman won't even acknowledge that there IS a distinction between the performance of the neurological function and the associated conscious experience. Instead he'll just argue that if you know "how the various functions associated with consciousness are performed" you've already explained the conscious experience.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              No, it's that there are compelling arguments for why consciousness does not reduce to physical concepts.
              So you like to think. But there is no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect other than the physical activity of the brain. Dare I suggest this is because there isn't any other explanation?
              Last edited by Tassman; 03-24-2020, 12:48 AM.
              “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
                And as I have repeatedly pointed out, YOU are making philosophical observations all the time which you tacitly claim to be true and factual.
                I do NOT “tacitly claim” philosophical observations “to be true and factual” at all. This is your straw-man. I have repeatedly acknowledged that philosophy has its uses in ensuring consistency and preventing errors of false inference. BUT (and this is where you go wrong), philosophy alone cannot arrive at new truths about nature – as Aristotle discovered. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong.

                Again, you exhibit no actual evidence for understanding the hard problem. It has nothing to do with there being "actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain."
                Without “the actual evidence for understanding the hard problem” you have no solution at all. Merely untested and untestable philosophical conclusions which may or may not be true. To be actually shown to be true one needs scientific methodology. And the various neurosciences have advanced to the point where they can now treat consciousness as a scientific problem like any other.
                “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 Chrawnus View Post
                  I'm gonna do a prediction here. Tassman won't even acknowledge that there IS a distinction between the performance of the neurological function and the associated conscious experience. Instead he'll just argue that if you know "how the various functions associated with consciousness are performed" you've already explained the conscious experience.
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  So you like to think. But there is no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect other than the physical activity of the brain. Dare I suggest this is because there isn't any other explanation?
                  Did I call it, or did I call it?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    No, it's that there are compelling arguments for why consciousness does not reduce to physical concepts.
                    Do you have any argument supporting your idea that an immaterial soul experiences qualia, like physical pain?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      Did I call it, or did I call it?
                      probably because you are the programmer of the Tassbot!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        So you like to think. But there is no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect other than the physical activity of the brain. Dare I suggest this is because there isn't any other explanation?
                        But as I keep trying to tell you, that's not the issue. You keep trying to skew the issue into your straw man version of it without attempting to actually understand what's being discussed. It's as if you're saying "I have this machine and all I need to understand about reality is what fits into my machine. If something doesn't fit into my machine, it's not worth my time or effort to try to understand it because it cannot be real, because I have this machine and all I need to understand about reality is what fits into this machine..." ad infinitum...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          I do NOT “tacitly claim” philosophical observations “to be true and factual” at all. This is your straw-man. I have repeatedly acknowledged that philosophy has its uses in ensuring consistency and preventing errors of false inference. BUT (and this is where you go wrong), philosophy alone cannot arrive at new truths about nature – as Aristotle discovered. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong.
                          So what you are typing on here you do not claim to be true and factual at all? Therefore what you write can be disregarded? The VERY STATEMENTS you are making are philosophical in nature; they are not merely there to 'ensure consistency and prevent false inference' in observation statements. They go far beyond that. You're arguing for your own irrelevance. Are you so imbued in your own faith in science that you cannot see that?! Aristotle was making EMPIRICAL claims that happened to be incorrect. His claims in his 'Metaphysics' are in a different logical category. Logical Positivism fails to meet its own criteria of truth: it's self-refuting.



                          Without “the actual evidence for understanding the hard problem” you have no solution at all. Merely untested and untestable philosophical conclusions which may or may not be true. To be actually shown to be true one needs scientific methodology. And the various neurosciences have advanced to the point where they can now treat consciousness as a scientific problem like any other.
                          How can you even comment upon something that you don't begin to understand? That seems a tad arrogant. A true scientist would seem to want to 'know' if for no other reason than to be better able to keep from embarrassing himself The various neurosciences can treat the functions associated with consciousness but cannot begin to tell us why or how any function is associated with consciousness, unlike any other unknown in science. Without faith or magical thinking, how can this absolute uniqueness be explained away? Because, you see, you have this machine...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            But as I keep trying to tell you, that's not the issue. You keep trying to skew the issue into your straw man version of it without attempting to actually understand what's being discussed. It's as if you're saying "I have this machine and all I need to understand about reality is what fits into my machine. If something doesn't fit into my machine, it's not worth my time or effort to try to understand it because it cannot be real, because I have this machine and all I need to understand about reality is what fits into this machine..." ad infinitum...
                            I don't think his argument is that he understands consciousness, none of us understands consciousness. His argument, at least I believe, is that there is no actual evidence supporting your own argument, which is that qualia aren't the experience of the physical body.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              I don't think his argument is that he understands consciousness, none of us understands consciousness. His argument, at least I believe, is that there is no actual evidence supporting your own argument, which is that qualia aren't the experience of the physical body.
                              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.'

                              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."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                So what you are typing on here you do not claim to be true and factual at all? Therefore what you write can be disregarded? The VERY STATEMENTS you are making are philosophical in nature;
                                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.

                                How can you even comment upon something that you don't begin to understand? That seems a tad arrogant.
                                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.

                                The various neurosciences can treat the functions associated with consciousness but cannot begin to tell us why or how any function is associated with consciousness,
                                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.
                                “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
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                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