Are Thoughts Causal?

[Sparko]

I've said that, but we've strayed off of the causal topic onto whether or not consciousness is reducible to physics.

Tassman is basically saying that he won't accept anything that isn't already a physical (ie scientific) explanation that justifies why consciousness is physically (ie scientifically) explainable! I've tried to explain to him why that's circular reasoning, and he just says that's "philosophical gobbledegook" and won't accept anything other than empirical evidence for why only empirical evidence is admissible in this case. And around and around we've gone for the past 6 weeks! Wheeeee!

Have him imagine a chair. Then ask him to show you that chair in his head.

[seer]

Have him imagine a chair. Then ask him to show you that chair in his head.

Right, that is a simple, direct way of making the point. Which is obvious, there is a private first person experience that is not public, nor can it be.

[Jim B.]

It is the only and have not been tested by experiments nor

But you're assuming once again that your interpretation is the only possible way of looking at things. You're assuming that empirical validation is the only possible type of epistemic validation. That's why you're arguing in a circle. When the question is "What is the epistemic scope of metaphysical naturalism?" you cannot appeal to metaphysical naturalism ITSELF as your criterion without coming off as seeming like a clown who doesn't know how to think. You can hide behind the authority of science all you want, but if you don't know how to think, it avails you not in the slightest.

[Jim B.]

Right, that is a simple, direct way of making the point. Which is obvious, there is a private first person experience that is not public, nor can it be.

Tassman is probably not sophisticated enough to argue this, but guys like Dennett might say that it only seems private for now, but when neuroscience is complete, nothing will be private in principle.

[seer]

Tassman is probably not sophisticated enough to argue this, but guys like Dennett might say that it only seems private for now, but when neuroscience is complete, nothing will be private in principle.

Doesn't Dennett say that our first person experiences are illusions?

[Tassman]

But you're assuming once again that your interpretation is the only possible way of looking at things. You're assuming that empirical validation is the only possible type of epistemic validation.

This as opposed to YOUR philosophical epistemic validations believed to be and

You can hide behind the authority of science all you want, but if you don't know how to think, it avails you not in the slightest.

[MaxVel]

This as opposed to YOUR philosophical epistemic validations believed to be and

You look really silly when you use metaphysical arguments to 'demonstrate' that metaphysical arguments can't demonstrate anything. And when that's pointed out to you, you just double down on your foolishness. Don't ever go to a casino, OK?

[Tassman]

you use metaphysical arguments to 'demonstrate' that metaphysical arguments can't demonstrate anything.

[MaxVel]

No, I use the scientific method to examine such arguments.

Great. Cite the scientific experiment that demonstrates that 'metaphysical arguments cannot validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs'. I expect links to published, peer-reviewed papers by credentialled scientists.


Note your claim was not 'it can be shown that X', but that 'We know that X'. Therefore there must be scientific papers already out there to support that. I want to know what apparatus was used, what physical material was tested and how, how the results were measured, what the physical parameters of the experiment were - all the ordinary things we find in real science experiments that give us your beloved empirically verifiable knowledge.

[Tassman]

Great. Cite the scientific experiment that demonstrates that 'metaphysical arguments cannot validate or invalidate commonly accepted subjective beliefs'.

Note your claim was not 'it can be shown that X', but that 'We know that X'.

[MaxVel]

academic arguments which cannot demonstrate anything for certain.

By your own standard, it cannot therefore demonstrate anything , or arrive at a tested conclusion, in which case it's not a piece of knowledge that anyone must accept.

Therefore your own position (asserting metaphysical claims about the ineffectiveness of metaphysics to give any knowledge) is self-refuting.


If true, it undercuts itself by removing the basis for accepting it as true, ergo it can be ignored as a piece of nonsense. You really should be smarter than this. But you're not.

It's atheists like you that give me confidence in the rare moments when I doubt God.

[Tassman]

[MaxVel]

Only information that can be tested and shown to be factually true is sound.

Whiffed again... still no scientific demonstration of your claims about knowledge, ergo the claims themselves are not knowledge.


You're still caught in the same problem. Your criteria for knowledge eliminates the criteria itself as a piece of knowledge.


See the bolded above for an example. According to your criteria, you have to be able to 'test and show to be factually true' (whatever that actually means) that statement itself for it to be sound information. Since that statement itself can't be tested scientifically or "validated via experiment and testing" it is not actual knowledge (according to you), but rather "based on personal opinion, religious beliefs, interpretation, emotions and judgment." Ergo it's NOT knowledge, and is just "subjective", thus true for you but not necessarily for me, and therefore can't you even in principle insist on anyone else accepting it as a standard for knowledge.


In short, the information that "Only information that can be tested and shown to be factually true is sound." itself is not sound by it's own standard. So it's not sound information. So who cares?



The most you can say to a metaphysical argument given your own criteria is 'Duh, well I'm not convinced' - and so what? That just means YOU don't like it, or agree with it. It doesn't mean that it's false, or that it doesn't give us real knowledge about reality.

[Tassman]

The most you can say to a metaphysical argument given your own criteria is 'Duh, well I'm not convinced' - and so what? That just means YOU don't like it, or agree with it. It doesn't mean that it's false, or that it doesn't give us real knowledge about reality.

[MaxVel]

Dodge. Since your scientism has been shown to be self-refuting, it's off the table. What do YOU propose to put in it's place? You are the one with the problem: an epistemology that is self-falsifying.



We can evaluate arguments the same way we evaluate all arguments: check that they are logically valid; and then make an assessment of the premise and the evidence for them. But that's not the problem you have.