Originally posted by Tassman
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 Tassman View PostHow could thoughts be immaterial
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWell you did, but Im not going to argue about it.
Ive not disagreed that science and philosophy are mutually interdependent. But, in the final analysis, only science can achieve actual, tested, factual knowledge. Philosophy cannot.
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.
The theoretical framework is the existing body of scientific knowledge which generates new hypotheses.
I know what it is, but Ill leave it for you philosophers to wrestle with. Not that philosophy can ever resolve it, only science can do that.
Tell me how, even conceivably, the neurosciences could tell us why some particular physical function or structure is associated with conscious experience.
Tell me why this conceivability gap exists with consciousness alone in all of science without recourse to scientistic faith or magical thinking.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRight, 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
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
isolating one from the other is artificial and intellectually disingenuous.that's not how science works. It works within paradigms and conceptual structures.No, that's not what it is. It's a conceptual gestalt that shifts the interrelation between the previously known 'facts' into a new pattern that yields new meaning.
Tell me how, even conceivably, the neurosciences could tell us why some particular physical function or structure is associated with conscious experience.Tell me why this conceivability gap exists with consciousness alone in all of science
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI don't think its a problem because I don't have a problem with thoughts, in some sense, being immaterial things. It's a problem for materialists like Tassman.
Comment
-
No one knows that consciousness cannot exist without a functioning material brain. But even if that were the case, you're still missing the point. You're at the wrong level of description. Beethoven's Ninth is "in some sense" oscillations of air molecules impacting the auditory and auditory-processing functions and structures of material brains. When I think the thought: "1+1=2," at the physical level, that thought is just neurons firing in my brain, but neuronal activity does not capture the content of the thought. Neurons firing cannot be right or wrong, justified or unjustified.
Comment
-
The two interpenetrate each other regularly. Science as mere technical rectitude and proficiency has severe limitations vis-a-vis true science and philosophy. You're construing science in a very narrow, ideological way.
Yes. Its called the scientific method whereby a scientist develops hypotheses, tests them and then modifies them on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. Thus, providing the data from which to develop explanations and scientific theories and make predictions.
See above.
Tell me how, even conceivably, science could tell us how some particular event like lightning could occur without prior knowledge of the existence of electrostatic discharges. OR how, without prior knowledge of the recently discovered Higgs boson, physical proof could be provided of an invisible, universe-wide field that gives mass to all matter. In short, this is what science does it studies the universe in search of natural explanations as to how it functions based upon the assumption that everything in the universe is material. And it has done so very successfully.
As far as the examples of lightning and the Higgs, of course there is an explanatory regress that's necessary but that's just a necessary part of explanation. The nature of hydrogen and oxygen had to be understood before water was understood, but there was no gap once that understanding was in place. It wouldn't make any sense for a chemist to say, "I understand hydrogen and oxygen but why is it that H2O is associated with water?"
Theres no "conceivability gap" except in your own mind. Its the role of science to overcome such gaps. See above.
There is a sharp distinction between actual science and the ideology of science, which is what you are purveying.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut my question is why do you think it a problem for many people at once to be in the same "physical" mental state such as the mental state in which 1+1=2?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostScience as mere technical rectitude and proficiency has severe limitations vis-a-vis true science and philosophy.Hypotheses are not gotten directly from observations. Observations are always theory-laden.
None of these problems posed anything remotely close to a conceivability gap like the "hard problem." They are all conventional scientific problems that are or were unknowns that resolve under physical explanations. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable.
It's NOT the role of science to overcome such gaps.If you don't think there is a gap, please tell me how, even in PRINCIPLE, the neurosciences and/or psychology alone could answer the 'hard problem'. Keep in mind that every other unknown in science can be answered in principle in such a way. The burden is on you to explain away this uniqueness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm not sure they would be in the 'same', ie the identical, physical state. But that might be a problem, how different physical states could be associated with the same mental state.
But what exactly do you think thoughts are? Do you think they are products of the physical or products of an immaterial mind?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt is a reasonable assumption that consciousness ceases upon the cessation of the brain. Hence it is reasonable to assume that thoughts are in some sense material and subject to scientific investigation.
(Note: If consciousness ceases with cessation of brain activity, it is likely that this will never be known with a high degree of likelihood, and thus never be a true scientific datum.)
Thoughts construed in terms of their content are not material if they are subject to being right and wrong, justified and unjustified, if the same thought can be shared by more than one material mind, and if a thought is capable of mutiple realizability. (These again are all philosophical conclusions, can be tested by reason and logic, and are all purportedly true and factual.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe mere technical rectitude and proficiency of science is nevertheless capable of arriving at conclusions that can be tested and shown to be true unlike philosophy.
Indeed. As I said.
All of these problems were the same in principle as the "conceivability gap" of the hard problem. Before they were explained, a physical explanation was perfectly conceivable even though more mystical explanations were often preferred e.g. a god being responsible for lightning rather than, as we now know, electrostatic discharges. There is no good reason to assume that the problem of consciousness will not be explained physically either. As far as we know conscious experience depends on physical brain activity so neuroscience should in time be able to explain it.
It is precisely the role of science to overcome gaps in knowledge of how the material world functions. This is what science does.
I do not acknowledge there is a uniqueness to be explained away, merely an unanswered (as yet) scientific problem.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment