Presuppositional Apologetics

[shunyadragon]

No, I am not, but it is clear that you haven't read a single idealist philosopher or you would understand the sense-data issue in philosophy. And you would understand that I am presenting their case (a decent philosopher can present both sides of the argument).

Even reading Descartes would be a good thing to help one understand this. Discourse on Method is his best known work. He was tired of trusting experts on so many things so he wrote:



Descartes, Shunya, was absolutely crucial in the development of thought that allowed science to thrive in Western Europe.

I have read Descartes, and I do not consider your view recognizing both sides of the issue of the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness. I fully recognize that all questions and problems are not resolved.

As far as the science goes I take the more practical route that yes, science has explained many aspects of the natural relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness, and I see not reason the science of the future cannot explain most of this relationship, and I put not hypothetical on science to do so in the future.

My belief in God, the soul, and the spiritual aspects of the human mind and consciousness is a separate issue from the natural relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness.

I believe appealing to unknowns in this case is and 'argument from ignorance.'

[grmorton]

I have read Descartes, and I do not consider your view recognizing both sides of the issue of the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness. I fully recognize that all questions and problems are not resolved.

As far as the science goes I take the more practical route that yes, science has explained many aspects of the natural relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness, and I see not reason the science of the future cannot explain most of this relationship, and I put not hypothetical on science to do so in the future.

My belief in God, the soul, and the spiritual aspects of the human mind and consciousness is a separate issue from the natural relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness.

I believe appealing to unknowns in this case is and 'argument from ignorance.'

I have not appealed to any 'unknown', I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't even discussed possible solutions to the mind-in-a-vat-problem. So what ARE you talking about? Or is this a standard escape argument that sounds good?

[grmorton]

People who denigrate the idea of the soul usually don't understand what science says about the existence of a soul. Nor do they know that Shrodinger's was also an objection to Quantum mechanics telling us what was happening. Afterall it is ridiculous to have an alive and dead animal, all at the same time.

"Here's something to ponder: Suppose the cat was placed in the box and the atom sent into the mirror system eight hours before you looked. The system evolves unobserved during those eight hours. If you find the cat alive, since it has gone eight hours without eating, you find a hungry cat. If you find a dead cat, an examination by a veterinary forensic pathologist would determine the cat to have died eight hours ago. Your observation not only creates a current reality, it also creates the history appropriate to that reality."
"You might consider all this absurd. Precisely Schrodinger's point! He concocted his cat story to argue that, taken to its logical conclusion, quantum theory was absurd. Therefore, he claimed, it must not be accepted as a description of what's really going on."
"The idea of a cat simultaneously alive and dead was, of course, as ridiculous to other physicists as it was to Schrodinger. But few worried about Schrodinger's demonstration of the theory's absurdity. The theory worked too well for mere absurdity to be a serious challenge."

"However, some of the deepest thinkers in physics have struggled with these questions. For example, there are several ways of resolving the Schrodinger cat problem. The first, advocated by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and others, is that consciousness determines existence. Wigner has written that it "was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way, without reference to the consciousness [of the observer] . . . the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate reality." Or, as the poet John Keats once wrote, "Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced.""

The above goes along with the brain in a vat issue. If we can't prove the external world exists other than by choice, and the external world tells us that we not only create what happens in that world, by observation and create the history appropriate to that observation, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is MIND which is pre-eminent in this world rather than matter.

The philosophical problem we have with PROVING that there is anything other than us is also a hint that what used to be called the spiritual is far more important to reality and Quantum seems to agree.

[37818]

The brain in the vat does not negate a reality for the vat and the brain being in that reality of that vat. The problem of how we know what we know is not removed by being a brain in a vat.

My question would be how would you prove the belief of not being a brain in a vat false?

[grmorton]

The brain in the vat does not negate a reality for the vat and the brain being in that reality of that vat. The problem of how we know what we know is not removed by being a brain in a vat.

My question would be how would you prove the belief of not being a brain in a vat false?

As I said in my first post, I don't think anyone can disprove it. The only way out is a leap of (gasp) faith, something materialists look down on me for having. lol

I would invite any materialist to explain how he falsifies the brain in a vat (or a more modern view) an intelligence watching a simulation of which he seems to be a part.

[shunyadragon]

I have not appealed to any 'unknown', I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't even discussed possible solutions to the mind-in-a-vat-problem. So what ARE you talking about? Or is this a standard escape argument that sounds good?

It is very clear that your claim that science can not explain 'Qualia' is an 'argument from ignorance' and an appeal to what you claim to be unknown or unknowable.

I think the one thing that will never be explained by science is the Qualia--the sensation of being a human, experiencing life. That is the unique thing that sets mind apart from a ball bouncing down the stairs in a determined manner. There is zero evidence that it experiences anything. When I bounce another human down the staircase, there us plenty of evidence that he is experiencing what my qualia would expect to experience were he to bounce me down the stairs. Even bouncing a ball of granite, which is a very complex mixture of various elements and chemical structures shows no evidence that complexity alone is the cause of qualia.

Also . . .

The above goes along with the brain in a vat issue. If we can't prove the external world exists other than by choice, and the external world tells us that we not only create what happens in that world, by observation and create the history appropriate to that observation, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is MIND which is pre-eminent in this world rather than matter.

It is not possible to prove this regardless of which view is true.

[element771]

It is very clear that your claim that science can not explain 'Qualia' is an 'argument from ignorance' and an appeal to what you claim to be unknown or unknowable.

Unless I am mistaken about GRMorton's position, this isn't an argument from ignorance... it is an argument from something that is unknowable. We will never be able to understand the "feeling" that one perceives upon stimulation no matter how complete of a scientific understanding of the brain and its connection to the mind. The fact is that you cannot climb into my head to understand the conscious experience that I have to a stimulus. I believe this is what is referred to as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" by Chalmers. This isn't an argument from ignorance.

As far as the brain in a vat, again...same thing. We could have a complete schematic of the brain and how it interacts with thought, the mind, etc. However, that has nothing to do with the possibility of you being a brain in a vat.

[shunyadragon]

Unless I am mistaken about GRMorton's position, this isn't an argument from ignorance... it is an argument from something that is unknowable. We will never be able to understand the "feeling" that one perceives upon stimulation no matter how complete of a scientific understanding of the brain and its connection to the mind. The fact is that you cannot climb into my head to understand the conscious experience that I have to a stimulus. I believe this is what is referred to as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" by Chalmers. This isn't an argument from ignorance.

As far as the brain in a vat, again...same thing. We could have a complete schematic of the brain and how it interacts with thought, the mind, etc. However, that has nothing to do with the possibility of you being a brain in a vat.

Claiming something is unknowable would be 'arguing from ignorance. I do not believe the relationship between the mind and consciousness can be described as unknowable in terms of what science is capable of in the future.

Since it is actually 'off topic' I will start a another thread concerning this issue.

[element771]

Claiming something is unknowable would be 'arguing from ignorance. I do not believe the relationship between the mind and consciousness can be described as unknowable in terms of what science is capable of in the future.

No it isn't. There is no ignorance here. We know that it is unknowable.

This isn't about the relationship between the mind and consciousness, it is about one's subjective experience. By definition, you cannot "know" my subjective experience anymore than I can "know" yours.

[shunyadragon]

No it isn't. There is no ignorance here. We know that it is unknowable.

No we do not know this is true.

This isn't about the relationship between the mind and consciousness, it is about one's subjective experience. By definition, you cannot "know" my subjective experience anymore than I can "know" yours.

The fact that we cannot know each other's subjective experience here is not remotely the issue, unless you can claim to a mind reader, and that is highly doubtful. The issue is whether science can eventually explain the nature of subjective experiences in he relationship between he brain, and the mind and consciousness.

[element771]

unless you can claim to a mind reader, and that is highly doubtful.

Exactly.

The fact that we cannot know each other's subjective experience here is not remotely the issue

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought that this was the issue. Science cannot speak towards the subjective experience of consciousness that we have. How can science quantify a thing that is inherently subjective?

The issue is whether science can eventually explain the nature of subjective experiences in he relationship between he brain, and the mind and consciousness.

Just to be clear.... I lean towards physicalism so I have no dog in the fight between the "mind" and the "brain". However, that does not address the question at hand. It is the same idea that science cannot prove* the existence of other minds.

Imagine this...let us pretend that science can explain the nature of the subjective experience. Does that apply to everyone? How do you know? What if that only applies to the test subject but someone else has a completely difference subjective experience?

*yes, I know science doesn't prove things. It is a forum, get over it.

[shunyadragon]

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought that this was the issue. Science cannot speak towards the subjective experience of consciousness that we have. How can science quantify a thing that is inherently subjective?

It is not an issue whether we can personally know what is on other people's minds unless they specifically tell us.

Science even at present can objectively observe neurological activity related to subjective experiences. They need not quantify this. Of course, everyone's subjective experiences can be different, but everyone's subjective experiences can be studied based on observable neurological activity, and the links and parallel neurological activity can be compared among different individuals.

It is true science has not achieved a complete comprehensive explanation of consciousness, it is consdered by many still a mystery at present, and the nature of subjective experiences, but the assumption that science cannot achieve this is indeed an 'argument from ignorance,' because it is not known what science may achieve in the future.

This site has some interesting insight into the present knowledge of science, and what science can presently know and observe.



We do know that virtually all mammals, and many if not most other animals with a complex brain experience consciousness.

Just to be clear.... I lean towards physicalism so I have no dog in the fight between the "mind" and the "brain". However, that does not address the question at hand. It is the same idea that science cannot prove* the existence of other minds.

OK

Imagine this...let us pretend that science can explain the nature of the subjective experience. Does that apply to everyone? How do you know? What if that only applies to the test subject but someone else has a completely difference subjective experience?

At present we could not explain the specific nature of subjective experiences other than objectively observe the link of subjective experiences with neurological activity. Well, science does realize the diversity of human experience in that every one has differences, and science does not at present even try 'know' every completely different subjective experience, but we are all human and have similar brains, and science at present can observe the neurological activity related to neurological activity as directly related to the physical brain.

Science need not know the details to conclude that all observed subjective experiences described by the subjects are directly linked to physical neurological behavior of the brain.

[element771]

Shuny,

Can you please indicate to me where I said that science cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of consciousness?

As usual, you are misreading what I say in attempt to maintain that you are correct. I really don't know why I even bother.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,

Can you please indicate to me where I said that science cannot provide a comprehensive understanding of consciousness?

As usual, you are misreading what I say in attempt to maintain that you are correct. I really don't know why I even bother.

[quote=element771] Quote Originally Posted by element771 View Post
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but i thought that this was the issue. Science cannot speak towards the subjective experience of consciousness that we have. How can science quantify a thing that is inherently subjective?

I was addressing this question.

[grmorton]

It is very clear that your claim that science can not explain 'Qualia' is an 'argument from ignorance' and an appeal to what you claim to be unknown or unknowable.



Also . . .



It is not possible to prove this regardless of which view is true.

Element771 did a better job of showing you were wrong than I could have done. Hats off to element.