Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, is your argument basically that you have no idea in either case? Is it a sort of consciousness of the gaps argument?Last edited by Jim B.; 03-23-2020, 03:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAs 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.
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.
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 PostScience 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 PostNo, it's that there are compelling arguments for why consciousness does not reduce to physical concepts.Last edited by Tassman; 03-24-2020, 12:48 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAnd as I have repeatedly pointed out, YOU are making philosophical observations all the time which you tacitly claim to be true and factual.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."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI'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 PostSo 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?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSo 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut 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 JimL View PostI 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.
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 PostSo 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;How can you even comment upon something that you don't begin to understand? That seems a tad arrogant.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,
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment