Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah because the questions doctors are asking and the questions philosophers are asking are the same.

"Let's look deeper into the processes of these biological functions so we can understand them better."

"PROVE TO ME YOUR LIVER REALLY EXISTS! IT'S NOTHING BUT A P-LIVER! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN A LIVER'S QUALIA! YOU MATERIALIST! HEY LIVER AND LIVE ARE SIMILAR WORDS! I BET THAT PROVES SOMETHING!"

Wow it's like I typed the same sentence twice.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not a mystic.

Do you play one on TV?

 

[Mojo]

Your brain processes information. That's what it does. And that's where the question should end there as well.

Although the ancient Greeks thought it was for cooling the blood. They might have been onto something there...

 

[tsig]

Gee wiz, I sure hope my doctor doesn't agree that the questions end quite so quickly as that.

How about:

Have you had your chakras realigned lately?

Is your house aligned with the ley lines?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Your heart pumps blood. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the heart pumps blood. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your heart beating and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where the process of pumping is gonna go when your heart stops beating.

Your liver filters toxins. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the liver filters toxins. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your liver filtering toxins and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where process of filtering is gonna go when your liver stops.

Your stomach digests food. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the stomach digests food. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your stomach digesting and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where the process of digestion is gonna go when your stomach stop working.

Your brain processes information. That's what it does. And that's where the question should end there as well.

Super post!

 

[Fudbucker]

Your heart pumps blood. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the heart pumps blood. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your heart beating and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where the process of pumping is gonna go when your heart stops beating.

Your liver filters toxins. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the liver filters toxins. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your liver filtering toxins and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where process of filtering is gonna go when your liver stops.

Your stomach digests food. That's what it does. And that's where the question ends. You don't have a crisis of faith over why the stomach digests food. You don't whine about how a rational description of its process ruins the magic of your stomach digesting and their just has to be more to it. You don't break down into an existential crisis over where the process of digestion is gonna go when your stomach stop working.

Your brain processes information. That's what it does. And that's where the question should end there as well.

Were you bullied by philosophers as a kid, or something?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Were you bullied by philosophers as a kid, or something?

Real mature.

No my issue has always been that we have one, exactly one, methodology for determining accurate information that has actually proven its worth, that has been the source of literally every actual advancement ever and it keeps getting taking to task by spokespeople for various other methodologies (all sorta loosely lumped under the umbrella term of "Philosophy") that most definitely haven't. I'm tired of simple Obi-wan Kenobi platitudes, glib self contradictory nonsense parading as wisdom, silly word games, and obtuse linguistic hair splitting telling the methodology that got us to the moon, split the atom, and cures diseases what is and isn't getting right and what it is and isn't allowed to have opinions on.

That's my issue. At this point the scientific method / rationality doesn't have anything to prove to Philosophy. It's the one actually getting results.

And it's always the same song and dance. It's always someone with some pet Woo they are mad science told them wasn't true, some wise old man on the mountain lookit how deep and enlightened I am routine, or someone oddly pissed about the fact that someone claimed to actually know something and is just going to firebomb the entire concept of acquiring knowledge and leave everything in a "You can't know anything" limbo.

 

[The Man]

I don't follow how this demonstrates that there must be someone experiencing life or consciousness. Or that the term observation means there must be an observer. Can you explain me more please?

Funny I don’t recall anyone asserting that there even “must be” life or consciousness let alone that “there must be someone experiencing” them. I do however recall someone asserting they are regularly unconscious (so alive but not conscious). However, we do find bodies that we classify as alive as well as those we classify as conscious (to varying degrees) and even find some experiencing both. Heck, in a somnambulistic state someone may appear awake and conscious (at least to a cursory examination) but they are not.

Again the term “observation” derives its meaning from the same Latin root word “observare”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=observe

observare "watch over, note, heed, look to, attend to, guard, regard, comply with," from ob "over" (see ob-) + servare "to watch, keep safe," from PIE root*ser- (1) "to protect." Meaning "to attend to in practice, to keep, follow" is attested from late 14c. Sense of "watch, perceive, notice" is 1560s, via notion of "see and note omens." Meaning "to say by way of remark" is from c. 1600. Related: Observed; observing.

That is the nature of the concept of observation, if perhaps you mean to employ some other concept then you should find a word more suited to that concept.

For example a traffic sign noting the speed limit can be observed (taking note of what the limit is). That limit itself can be observed (the speed can be kept at or below that limit). Even observations can be made about the applicability of that limit (that it may be too fast or too slow for the general road conditions). Whatever makes or can make such observations is by definition an observer. It doesn’t matter how else you might classify them, alive, not alive, human, robotic, conscious or not conscious, the simple ascription that something makes an observation also makes it an observer in that observation.

In the material example I gave before each bar is observer to the other and itself (as some of its own IR is reflected back). Which is observer and which is observed in an observation is generally simply a matter of perspective, or more specifically in terms of relative the selection of a reference frame. For self-observation both observer and the observed are the same thing.

 

[The Man]

I'm not decrying self-reporting.

...not good for making assertions about the relative efficacy of treatments.

Sure sounds like you were publicly denouncing it for “making assertions about the relative efficacy of treatments.”

I'm saying that you can't ban or marginalize treatments on the basis that there is only subjective evidence, or on the basis that their proposed method of action, if there is one, doesn't fit with existing science. Such a ban goes against what materialism is saying about the nature of objective reality.

No, you can state what you like. If people want to buy into scientifically-evidenced medications there's no problem. It's just a behaviour and belief system

OK, so saying what the treatment does (like make your spleen fall out) or doesn’t do isn’t “crossing a line”?

 

[John Jones]

[...]
I came out of philosophical retirement (!) and re-started this drama to protest the way homeopathy, for one, is currently being demonised by scientists in the media. [...]

Screw a bunch of homeopathy.

 

[marplots]

Real mature.

No my issue has always been that we have one, exactly one, methodology for determining accurate information that has actually proven its worth, that has been the source of literally every actual advancement ever and it keeps getting taking to task by spokespeople for various other methodologies (all sorta loosely lumped under the umbrella term of "Philosophy") that most definitely haven't. I'm tired of simple Obi-wan Kenobi platitudes, glib self contradictory nonsense parading as wisdom, silly word games, and obtuse linguistic hair splitting telling the methodology that got us to the moon, split the atom, and cures diseases what is and isn't getting right and what it is and isn't allowed to have opinions on.

That's my issue. At this point the scientific method / rationality doesn't have anything to prove to Philosophy. It's the one actually getting results.

That's kind of a meta-method there. "Don't ask questions that my preferred method of inquiry is unlikely to find answers to."

The rest is a bit of strawmanning. Philosophy has its nutters and stumbling amateurs - most definitely. But then again, so does science. You don't have to look far to find gobs of pseudo-physics that "isn't even wrong." We accept it for the nonsense it is and realize it doesn't taint the root discipline. It's the same way in philosophy, with perhaps one distinct difference: we are generally less familiar with "good" philosophy and hence less likely to detect the difference between woo and worthwhile.

By "we," I mean "me." In the sciences, I look to other forum members to set matters straight. Sometimes with a bit of "show the math," other times by reference to authoritative papers. I hardly ever see that with philosophical questions. We (and I mean me) seem to find it more satisfying to wander around in our own musings instead.

The ironic bit is that we (and I mean we) so often use the tools of philosophy on this forum to make our arguments stronger. Citing fallacies is common, insistence on coherence, appeals to reason and morality, and so on. Even insisting on empiricism is a choice of philosophical schools.

 

[calebprime]

Now that was a good post, Mr. Marplots.

 

[marplots]

Now that was a good post, Mr. Marplots.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philosophy has its nutters and stumbling amateurs - most definitely. But then again, so does science. You don't have to look far to find gobs of pseudo-physics that "isn't even wrong." We accept it for the nonsense it is and realize it doesn't taint the root discipline. It's the same way in philosophy, with perhaps one distinct difference: we are generally less familiar with "good" philosophy and hence less likely to detect the difference between woo and worthwhile.

The difference is science has both self correction built into itself and the overall base concept of falsifiability, something philosophy as a concept does not have.

When science is done wrong it gets corrected by more science.

Not only is philosophy not correctable by more philosophy, there's not even a framework by which a philosophy can be wrong.

Question that aren't falsifiable are meaningless. If there's no possible functional difference between the answers, the question is by definition not worth asking.

 

[marplots]

The difference is science has both self correction built into itself and the overall base concept of falsifiability, something philosophy as a concept does not have.

When science is done wrong it gets corrected by more science.

Not only is philosophy not correctable by more philosophy, there's not even a framework by which a philosophy can be wrong.

Question that aren't falsifiable are meaningless. If there's no possible functional difference between the answers, the question is by definition not worth asking.

I was with you until the highlighted bit. What comes before that is merely a way to distinguish one discipline from another. But that bit? I'll give you an example of two questions I think meaningful, one better served by science, the second by philosophy:

1) How many terrorists (expressed as a percentage with a p-value around .05) will we add to the population if we take in refugees from Syria?

2) Should we take the risk?

ETA: I also don't see the two disciplines at odds with each other, but complimentary.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I was with you until the highlighted bit. What comes before that is merely a way to distinguish one discipline from another. But that bit? I'll give you an example of two questions I think meaningful, one better served by science, the second by philosophy:

1) How many terrorists (expressed as a percentage with a p-value around .05) will we add to the population if we take in refugees from Syria?

2) Should we take the risk?

ETA: I also don't see the two disciplines at odds with each other, but complimentary.

Without getting too deep into discussions which have already beaten, resurrected, and re-beaten the horse I have a major base problem with the idea that (and forgive me for over simplifying a rather esoteric concept a bit here in an almost certainly futile attempt to keep from degrading immediately into pointless semantics...) "science" can't/shouldn't make judgement calls about what are traditionally thought of or described as moral or ethical topics.

Not only do I think science can and should weigh in on those topics, I think like everything else it's track record for actually addressing/improving/solving them is pretty much to the point where other methodologies have lost the moral high ground.

But that's a worldview of mine that I have no desire to defend in this arena anymore. Again it's a matter of semantics and categorization but just because it's not test tubes and lab coats doesn't mean it isn't science. Game theory, statistics, psychology, sociology, and neurology are all science and as far as I'm concerned that is all you need for ethics and morality. The only questions not answerable under that framework is meaningless navel gazing of the "Prove to me using my narrow definition of science that pain is a negative or admit your entire ethical model doesn't work" variety. I have as little interest in debating with moral solipsist as I do with regular solipsist. Once you accept that morality is simply a desire to reduce the suffering of conscious creatures science sorta does cover all the bases needed for a good, solid framework.

But directly while I've never argued that philosophy and science can't get along that's not what I see on a practical level. Either it's science being held back by "bad" philosophy (mysticism, pseudoscience, religion, etc) or "good" philosophy (ethics, morality, base concepts of thought and reality, etc) trying to assume a role above science, telling it what it can or can't do and is and isn't allowed to hold opinions on. Again that's my point. Science has actually proven itself as a useful, functional methodology to a degree that no "Philosophy" ever has, so while there is still room for philosophy in my worldview I am pretty much done with any suggestion that science has anything left to prove to any other methodology at this point.

At the end of the day I still feel that all the various variations of "Meaningless philosophical distinction, therefore science as a concept doesn't work, therefore Woo" is still worth fighting against. No materialism has not devastated the scientific method and homeopathy is still meaningless tripe. All the trees falling the forest with no one around and sounds of one hand clapping aren't going to change that.

 

[marplots]

At the end of the day I still feel that all the various variations of "Meaningless philosophical distinction, therefore science as a concept doesn't work, therefore Woo" is still worth fighting against.

Oh, sure, I agree with that bit.

But I can't figure out what a falsifiable scientific answer to my question #2 would even look like. A lot of history is, after all, one-off judgement calls based on ever-changing value systems/rankings.

What do you think science says is the answer to #2?

 

[Dancing David]

It's entirely relevant. If mental states are the same as brain states, then knowledge of a brain state would be the same as knowledge of the corresponding mental state (and vice-versa). I.E., if a blind person knew everything there was to know about the physical process of seeing (nerve impulses, brain states, etc.), then that blind person would know what seeing is.

False category error and over generalization

I think that's ridiculous for obvious reasons: a blind person will never know what seeing is unless they experience it first-hand.

Therefore, mental states are not the same as brain states. They may be casually connected, but they're not equivalent. See: Mary's Room.

This is silly, the fact that I can read about preforming ballet does not mean that I can dance in a ballet like a trained dancer.

A 'brain state' is a large set of categories, 'knowledge' of something is a smaller subset.

So you seem to have made an analogy of over generalization.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not a mystic. I just don't think mental states can be reduced to brain states. In mathematics, there is a similar problem: do numbers exist and, if so, what is the nature of their existence?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

You avoided the question, so I will put it even more plainly.

Where can you evidence a mental state absent a brain?

 

[Dancing David]

Were you bullied by philosophers as a kid, or something?

Do you play someone who avoids answering direct arguments on TV ?