• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

David Mo said:
Of course, science is not infallible. Therefore I wrote “nearly” and “almost”. But prediction in natural sciences is much higher than psychology. If the rate of prediction in natural sciences were similar to psychology our technological world would be impossible. I assure you that I wouldn’t take a plane. Therefore no sensible psychologist would say that he is using the hypothetical-deductive method. It is not even clear that psychology resorts laws instead of inductive generalizations in huge areas of human behaviour. Watson’s claim that he was able to make thieves, scholars, priests or killers with children in the appropriate circumstances is generally considered a boast today.

Because all of these, dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim. This is a philosophical debate.
Click to expand...
I wasn't actually thinking about psychology when I made my statement about predicting human behaviour. I do agree that it is still a branch of science that has a long way to go (needs to incorporate more physics and chemistry for a start) but don't forget the same can be said for other branches of science.
 
Darat said:
I wasn't actually thinking about psychology when I made my statement about predicting human behaviour. I do agree that it is still a branch of science that has a long way to go (needs to incorporate more physics and chemistry for a start) but don't forget the same can be said for other branches of science.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. Advances on understanding human behaviour in the last decades had been produced by chemical and physical studies of brain. Some progress has been also made with techniques of behavioural modification. But other dualist psychologies are stagnant. Psychoanalysis mainly. This suggest that materialism is the only explanation of mind.

Dualists tend to argue that these advances are only about symptoms, not underlying causes, but this seems begging the question. The outcomes are too incomplete; this is true. But this doesn't justify to speak of a hidden entity behind the brain. This only points to the inherent complexity of the material bases of our behaviour.

Psychoanalysts forget that Freud predicted that his theory would be supported by brain studies in the future. This has not exactly happen, but Freud's confidence in the material foundations of brain remains. Freud thought that dualist language was only needed by the limitations of our knowledge. I agree and I think this is still the case. We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
 
David Mo said:
We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting and observant point. It's almost a perfect study of why threads here always go down the same road.

We are, on the whole, simply not ready with Theory, and, perforce, must play this dualist game of matter/no matter.
 
David Mo said:
I am afraid your interpretation of my comment is not correct. "Full prediction" were not my words. They are Saul McLeod's who I quoted as an example of a theory about why psychology does not have the same scientific level of prediction and explanation as the natural sciences. Which is an obvious fact. Of course it is possible to predict some things about human behaviour, but in a much more vague way -the formal level of the natural sciences is much more complex- and with a much lower proportion of success. This establishes a substantial difference between physical and psychological facts. To claim that this difference justifies something like a substantial dualism is something I have already rejected in my previous commentary. But it is not a comfortable assert for positivism neither.
Click to expand...

David Mo said:
Of course, science is not infallible. Therefore I wrote “nearly” and “almost”. But prediction in natural sciences is much higher than psychology. If the rate of prediction in natural sciences were similar to psychology our technological world would be impossible. I assure you that I wouldn’t take a plane. Therefore no sensible psychologist would say that he is using the hypothetical-deductive method. It is not even clear that psychology resorts laws instead of inductive generalizations in huge areas of human behaviour. Watson’s claim that he was able to make thieves, scholars, priests or killers with children in the appropriate circumstances is generally considered a boast today.

Because all of these, dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim. This is a philosophical debate.
Click to expand...

David Mo said:
I agree with you on that. Advances on understanding human behaviour in the last decades had been produced by chemical and physical studies of brain. Some progress has been also made with techniques of behavioural modification. But other dualist psychologies are stagnant. Psychoanalysis mainly. This suggest that materialism is the only explanation of mind.

Dualists tend to argue that these advances are only about symptoms, not underlying causes, but this seems begging the question. The outcomes are too incomplete; this is true. But this doesn't justify to speak of a hidden entity behind the brain. This only points to the inherent complexity of the material bases of our behaviour.

Psychoanalysts forget that Freud predicted that his theory would be supported by brain studies in the future. This has not exactly happen, but Freud's confidence in the material foundations of brain remains. Freud thought that dualist language was only needed by the limitations of our knowledge. I agree and I think this is still the case. We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
Click to expand...

If your argument is meant to apply to psychology alone, OK, I suppose, but neuroscience has produced a mountain of evidence regarding the origin the mind from the activity of the brain which cannot be ignored.
I can't let this statement:
"Dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim",
pass without comment.

Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain. Interfere with the chemistry of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind; interfere with the structure of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind, electrically stimulate the brain, and you generate conscious content within the mind. This is an iron clad case, backed up by thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed research articles. The fact that psychology as a science remains flawed does not erase this foundation in neuroscience, it simply means there is much more work to be done in the field.

The only argument dualists may wish to make (and frequently do in these very pages), is that no one can say HOW the brain produces the mind. I am happy to concede this point, but the fact that the brain DOES INDEED generate the mind by "some mechanism" is without doubt. I would suggest that more progress would be made in less time by psychology, as a field, by presupposing the obvious (mind is brain), than by continuing to work in a failed paradigm (mind is its own entity), as you suggest.
 
MuDPhuD said:
Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain. Interfere with the chemistry of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind; interfere with the structure of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind, electrically stimulate the brain, and you generate conscious content within the mind. This is an iron clad case, backed up by thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed research articles. The fact that psychology as a science remains flawed does not erase this foundation in neuroscience, it simply means there is much more work to be done in the field.
Click to expand...

That doesn't tell the full story. A gravitational field exists independently of mass, but as soon as you remove the mass the field vanishes too (and indeed there will always be a slight delay so that the gravitational field will always exist after the mass has vanished). I'm not claiming the mind is generated by the brain in the same way as gravity is generated by mass, but the latter does show that correlation of mind and brain alone does not disprove the fundamental tenet of dualism (although it tends to refuse most others).
 
baron said:
That doesn't tell the full story. A gravitational field exists independently of mass, but as soon as you remove the mass the field vanishes too (and indeed there will always be a slight delay so that the gravitational field will always exist after the mass has vanished). I'm not claiming the mind is generated by the brain in the same way as gravity is generated by mass, but the latter does show that correlation of mind and brain alone does not disprove the fundamental tenet of dualism (although it tends to refuse most others).
Click to expand...

Really? When exactly and using what method did you measure the speed of gravity? Where is your Nobel prize?
 
abaddon said:
Really? When exactly and using what method did you measure the speed of gravity? Where is your Nobel prize?
Click to expand...
Where did he say he measured it? BTW the scientist that did measure it doesn't have a Nobel either, at least not yet.
 
MuDPhuD said:
If your argument is meant to apply to psychology alone, OK, I suppose, but neuroscience has produced a mountain of evidence regarding the origin the mind from the activity of the brain which cannot be ignored.
I can't let this statement:
"Dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim",
pass without comment.

Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain.
Click to expand...


Since science -neuroscience if you want- cannot provide a whole explanation of many particular behaviours, it cannot answer the philosophical assumption of dualism. Science only can affirm what it can empirically be demostrated and neuroscience is not able to provide us with a whole explanation of human behaviour. Only a materialist interpretation of science can -I think that with a clear advantage over dualism. But materialism is philosophy, not science.
 
David Mo said:
Since science -neuroscience if you want- cannot provide a whole explanation of many particular behaviours, it cannot answer the philosophical assumption of dualism. Science only can affirm what it can empirically be demostrated and neuroscience is not able to provide us with a whole explanation of human behaviour. Only a materialist interpretation of science can -I think that with a clear advantage over dualism. But materialism is philosophy, not science.
Click to expand...

Let me paraphrase, and you tell me if I am understanding you:

"Science can't explain all the details, therefore it has nothing to say about the existence of the mind independent of the brain."

Is that what you're saying?
 
MuDPhuD said:
Let me paraphrase, and you tell me if I am understanding you:

"Science can't explain all the details, therefore it has nothing to say about the existence of the mind independent of the brain."

Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

No. I am saying that science cannot solve the debate between dualism and monism. But I am also saying that the debate between dualism and monism cannot be solved without the contributions of science. The advances in neuroscience and behaviour modification are not definitive, but they tip the scales in favor of materialistic monism.
 
David Mo said:
No. I am saying that science cannot solve the debate between dualism and monism. But I am also saying that the debate between dualism and monism cannot be solved without the contributions of science. The advances in neuroscience and behaviour modification are not definitive, but they tip the scales in favor of materialistic monism.
Click to expand...

I think there is a basic flaw in the argumentation in the OP: The existence of something has nothing what so ever to do with what science can (currently) explain. Radio waves, electricity, etc. existed also before science had even an inkling of explanation for them.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I think there is a basic flaw in the argumentation in the OP: The existence of something has nothing what so ever to do with what science can (currently) explain. Radio waves, electricity, etc. existed also before science had even an inkling of explanation for them.

Hans
Click to expand...
Seems some people expect science to perform as if it were an all-knowing god. Only god believers could have such expectations.

If anyone claims there's a better method of finding the truth of reality than science then they should explain . . .

What is that method?
How does that method work?
What are answers provided by that method?

In other words - What explains consciousness better than science and how does it do it (with an example)?

. . . Not holding my breath for any answers . . .
 
Last edited:
Can anyone fault these answers? . . .

Q - What is that method?
A – Paranormal beliefs (usually in a metaphysical cosmic-consciousness/god)

Q - How does that method work?
A – By having belief and faith that it works.

Q - What are answers provided by that method?
A - Any answers you want to believe are provided (Note – If you don’t believe you get the answers you want from your current beliefs you can simply change your beliefs until you do get them).
 
Last edited:
Science has already begun explaining a lot of traits of consciousness.

That said, on the other hand, it seems that a lot of individual people's consciousnesses cannot explain science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom