The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[Dave Rogers]

I can imagine being a bee. Why do I need to have the actual experience? It’s enough for me to know that a bee can’t even imagine what it’s like to be me.

"Half a bee, philosophically,
Must ipso facto half not be.
But half a bee has got to be,
Vis-à-vis its entity - d'you see?
But can a bee be said to be,
Or not to be, a entire bee,
When half the bee is not a bee,
Due to some ancient injury?"

 

[David Mo]

If it is real, then it can in principle be examined by the methods of science, since by definition science is the tool that we use to examine reality.

This is petitio principi.

Science is the examination of the real by means of a specific method. Leaving aside the fact that each science has its own method and it is impossible to assimilate the method of history to that of physics, for example.
Nowhere is it written that science is the only method (if one single exists) of examining reality.

 

[RedStapler]

Mammals certainly have consciousness, since we know that their brains are very similar to ours. This, we know for sure.

Reptiles have it too, but their brains are less developed compared to mammalian brains .. so, their conscious experience may lack something that we have.

On the other end of the spectrum , we know that bacteria don't have a conscious experience : for there is no nervous system to account for it.

Insects lie somewhere in between : They may have a limited conscious experience, they may not, this we do not know. And if they have it, then we are commiting an immoral deed when killing them.

I don't ask about how the heart beats, because You and Me, can both look at a heart, and see its beating, and give a full account for it .

But we cannot look at the same conscious experience, you look at yours, I look at mine, and we cannot give a full account for it. Yes, there is a gap in our understanding.

And if there is no gap, then there is another gap that makes us think there is a gap. If consciousness is explainable and there is no gap, then the gap is in the fact that we think it is not explainable.

That is, answers seem to be intellectually unsatisfactory , either because the problem lies in our imagination, or in our language, or in both.

It's like you did not read anything I wrote..you clearly want a gap to exist, so that is your problem alone.

 

[Darat]

This is petitio principi.

Science is the examination of the real by means of a specific method. Leaving aside the fact that each science has its own method and it is impossible to assimilate the method of history to that of physics, for example.
Nowhere is it written that science is the only method (if one single exists) of examining reality.

But it is the only method humans have come up with so far that seems to do what it says it does on the tin.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Science is the examination of the real by means of a specific method. Leaving aside the fact that each science has its own method and it is impossible to assimilate the method of history to that of physics, for example.
Nowhere is it written that science is the only method (if one single exists) of examining reality.

Let's modify that a bit; is science the only useful way of examining reality? We know of plenty of useless ways - for example, astrology, augury or simply making **** up - but what other useful ways are there? If you're asserting that X is not the only member of set A, where X is scientific enquiry and A is the set of ways to obtain useful information on reality, your assertion can be simply proven by giving a second member Y of set A. What candidates for Y can you suggest?

If you can't offer any, then while not rejecting your claim that others may exist I'd rather stick with the one we know we have until someone can show me another one.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

Honest best guess.

You have to have a split brain (i.e distinct left and right hemispheres or something functionally equivalent) to have (what we generally are talking about on a practical, non-philosophical day to day level) a "consciousness."

Bats meet the criteria, bees don't.

To vastly, vastly over simplify it we have a part of brain who's job is to take all the various inputs and decision making (and that's a whole can of worms since it, on a neurological level, happens before we "decide" to do it...) and form, and again this is all just trying to phrase it the best way possible which is hard, a cognizant picture.

I think, again in most uses of the word, that "cognizant picture" is what we are talking about, or trying to talk about, when we are talking about consciousness.

Again much like the "Stop thinking of yourself as a 'thing' and start thinking of yourself as a process (or to be more accurate multiple processes)" makes this sort of existential crisis a billion times easier to just get over, so does accepting that there are, in a very real sense, two minds/selves/whatever at work inside your brain, not just one. This accounts for the perception of self as being distinct from the perception of mind that philosophy is so hung up on and the whole "1st person/3rd person" nonsense.

 

[MohamedTaqi]

It's like you did not read anything I wrote..you clearly want a gap to exist, so that is your problem alone.

I have read it, what is it that I did not understand from what you said?

 

[RedStapler]

I have read it, what is it that I did not understand from what you said?

You have simply repeated your claims. I don't think it's worthwhile discussing this with you. As I said: It's your problem, not anyone else's.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I said: It's your problem, not anyone else's.

As I have to remind philosophers routinely, other people aren't having your existential crisis.

 

[David Mo]

But it is the only method humans have come up with so far that seems to do what it says it does on the tin.

Let's modify that a bit; is science the only useful way of examining reality? We know of plenty of useless ways - for example, astrology, augury or simply making **** up - but what other useful ways are there? If you're asserting that X is not the only member of set A, where X is scientific enquiry and A is the set of ways to obtain useful information on reality, your assertion can be simply proven by giving a second member Y of set A. What candidates for Y can you suggest?

If you can't offer any, then while not rejecting your claim that others may exist I'd rather stick with the one we know we have until someone can show me another one.

Dave

First of all you should tell me what science you're talking about. Because the methods of physics are different from those of psychology or history. Do you know a universal method applicable to every science?

Secondly, you should explain to me how you solve personal problems that you encounter on a daily basis with that method.

Third, you should explain to me how you scientifically solve the dilemma of the least usefulness/happiness/etc. of the greatest number vs. the greatest happiness/utility/etc. of the least number. Or what scientific definition exists of well-being or whatever else you want to propose as the first moral good.

After you have solved the first problem we will move on to the second. If it's all right with you. And if you can't solve any of them we will have to conclude that science is not the only useful knowledge to live the life of human beings.

In my opinion, none of these problems are solvable with science. And this shows that science is not the only useful method of knowledge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you know a universal method applicable to every science?

Really? How at no point did your brain not stop you from writing that sentence?

 

[Dave Rogers]

First of all you should tell me what science you're talking about. Because the methods of physics are different from those of psychology or history. Do you know a universal method applicable to every science?

Secondly, you should explain to me how you solve personal problems that you encounter on a daily basis with that method.

Third, you should explain to me how you scientifically solve the dilemma of the least usefulness/happiness/etc. of the greatest number vs. the greatest happiness/utility/etc. of the least number. Or what scientific definition exists of well-being or whatever else you want to propose as the first moral good.

After you have solved the first problem we will move on to the second. If it's all right with you. And if you can't solve any of them we will have to conclude that science is not the only useful knowledge to live the life of human beings.

In my opinion, none of these problems are solvable with science. And this shows that science is not the only useful method of knowledge.

It would be easy just to support your claim with a single example but you've chosen instead to evade the question by throwing a barrage of questions back at me. From this I can only conclude that you can't offer any suggestion as to another useful way to investigate reality. Until you do so, I'll continue to use the scientific method.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

But it is the only method humans have come up with so far that seems to do what it says it does on the tin.

Nowhere is it written that all questions about the world can be answered. Why would it be a problem if the nature of qualia/consciousness or what ever we are talking about was such a case? Mathematics has plenty of unanswerable questions.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nowhere is it written that all questions about the world can be answered. Why would it be a problem if the nature of qualia/consciousness or what ever we are talking about was such a case? Mathematics has plenty of unanswerable questions.

Well, there's no difference, practically, between "it can't be explained" and "it hasn't been explained yet." The latter is, of course, not a problem; we know that not all possible knowledge is yet known. What makes it a problem is people saying, "Because materialism doesn't explain it, you have to chuck it all away as fake." Materialism hasn't yet explained everything, but I've yet to see any other set of assumptions explain anything. I'm still waiting for David Mo to come up with a viable alternative to science, which he seems disinclined to attempt. I'd like to see the same with respect to materialism: even if it can't explain everything right now, what else can?

Dave

 

[RedStapler]

Third, you should explain to me how you scientifically solve the dilemma of the least usefulness/happiness/etc. of the greatest number vs. the greatest happiness/utility/etc. of the least number. Or what scientific definition exists of well-being or whatever else you want to propose as the first moral good.

This is just a reworded "redness of red".

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Science can explain the thing, but it can't explain the thingness of the thing."
"What's the difference between the thing and the thingness of the thing?"
"Well the thingness of the thing is the part that science can't explain."

And round and around we go.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, there's no difference, practically, between "it can't be explained" and "it hasn't been explained yet."

There's also the difference between an unanswerable question and a meaningless one.

"What's the last digit of Pi?" is an unanswerable question.

"If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it does it make sound" is gibberish.

 

[LarryS]

It would be easy just to support your claim with a single example but you've chosen instead to evade the question by throwing a barrage of questions back at me. From this I can only conclude that you can't offer any suggestion as to another useful way to investigate reality. Until you do so, I'll continue to use the scientific method.

Dave

For myself, a very small portion of what I know re reality came from science. The vast majority came from the simplicity of being present, and perceiving. I give personal experience the highest veracitry, and temper it with science where science can add value . . . astronomy, evolution, etc. holy **** that is some good stuff.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For myself, a very small portion of what I know re reality came from science. The vast majority came from the simplicity of being present, and perceiving. I give personal experience the highest veracitry, and temper it with science where science can add value . . . astronomy, evolution, etc. holy **** that is some good stuff.

Observation is the first stage of the scientific method. When you look at the sky, note that it's usually blue during the day and black at night, then start looking at when it isn't either and thinking what else is going on at the time, then you're following the first steps of the scientific method. There is no science without observation.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

For myself, a very small portion of what I know re reality came from science. The vast majority came from the simplicity of being present, and perceiving. I give personal experience the highest veracitry, and temper it with science where science can add value . . . astronomy, evolution, etc. holy **** that is some good stuff.

What about when personal experience is contradicted by science? For example, if your personal experience tells you that the people you know are more likely to be accurately described by their astrological horoscope than you would expect them to be by chance, but statistical analysis and blind tests say otherwise?