Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[wea]

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

What do you think this "philosophy thing" says is the answer to #2?

 

[LarryS]

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?

there does not have to be a singular scientific answer - but 'risk' can always be expressed as cost and utility - so yes I can envision science deriving several answers to #2 - and this in part is accomplished by elevating values to something real

 

[Mojo]

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.

Or as Stephen Law calls it, Going Nuclear. The only unusual thing here being that Nick227 seems to have gone nuclear before the debate even started.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Perhaps, but this certainly goes both ways. The ... non-materialist way of arguing is very often a question of claiming a qualitative difference between what can be explained scientifically and what cannot just yet. Sort of a philosophy of the gaps.

Good example is what we just had, above: So seeing something can be nicely explained in physical terms, but then what about the feeling of seeing something. That is something we are currently not quite sure how happens, so that is the magic qualia.

The rest is a bit of strawmanning. Philosophy has its nutters and stumbling amateurs - most definitely. But then again, so does science.

Certainly. Even some of the great ones.

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.

Problem is: Science explains and proves stuff. Philosophy, even the best kind, doesn't. It asks questions. The difficulty comes when somebody tries to use philosohpy to prove an idea.

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.

Why sure! If BOTH philosophy and science points in the same direction, we must have something important.

Hans

 

[Hlafordlaes]

So seeing something can be nicely explained in physical terms, but then what about the feeling of seeing something. That is something we are currently not quite sure how happens, so that is the magic qualia.

Nothing magic about sensations. The central and peripheral nervous system is two-way. It allows replay, so memories can have physical consequences. Qualia. It's why sensory deprivation is so disorienting; brain-in-vat syndrome, missing its nervous system.

 

[marplots]

What do you think this "philosophy thing" says is the answer to #2?

"Depends."

 

[annnnoid]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

Probably because certain blind squirrels have somehow achieved 20/20 vision.

False category error and over generalization

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.

It’s not a category error. It’s quite accurate. A brain state is simply whatever it is. Knowledge of it can occur in different ways. Lots of folks are insisting that the brain state and the ‘mental’ state are one and the same. If that were the case then, first of all...we would all have some manner of intimate acquaintance with whatever it is that a brain state is from the point of view of a brain state...and secondly...mental states would simply not exist. IOW…one event cannot have two categories. For the irredeemably ignorant…there is a very simple reason that we have two words for what happens. It is because two very different things happen.

…otherwise why would we have two words to represent it?

A mental state is a state of meaning. Meaning exists. This is evidenced by every single moment of your existence. Only a complete idiot would argue that you are not something…not just more…but monumental orders of magnitude more…than mere brain states (one need look no further than the threads here at ISF to explore the all-but infinite range of activity that human nature involves). Even the simple act of describing something as a brain state or biochemical activity is itself evidence of of an entirely 'other' variety of thing.

Biochemical activity does not have the ability to describe itself as something.

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

Where can you evidence a mental state absent a brain?

Is this supposed to be profound or something????

That we cannot establish its existence independently of a brain state neither confirms that it does not exist independently of brain states nor does it confirm that it does not have a differentiated ontology. It simply means that we cannot yet establish its existence independently of brain states. These facts should come as no surprise given how blindingly rudimentary our understanding of these phenomena actually are. I think it is worth repeating that no one…absolutely no one…has a freakin clue how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling an empirically definitive understanding of what consciousness (…’it’…) even is.

…and yet you continuously trot out these stawmen claiming that our inability to locate consciousness independently of brain activity closes the book on so many massive questions of cognitive neuroscience. Is it really necessary to point out how stupidly premature such conclusions are?

 

[tsig]

Probably because certain blind squirrels have somehow achieved 20/20 vision.




It’s not a category error. It’s quite accurate. A brain state is simply whatever it is. Knowledge of it can occur in different ways. Lots of folks are insisting that the brain state and the ‘mental’ state are one and the same. If that were the case then, first of all...we would all have some manner of intimate acquaintance with whatever it is that a brain state is from the point of view of a brain state...and secondly...mental states would simply not exist. IOW…one event cannot have two categories. For the irredeemably ignorant…there is a very simple reason that we have two words for what happens. It is because two very different things happen.

…otherwise why would we have two words to represent it?

A mental state is a state of meaning. Meaning exists. This is evidenced by every single moment of your existence. Only a complete idiot would argue that you are not something…not just more…but monumental orders of magnitude more…than mere brain states (one need look no further than the threads here at ISF to explore the all-but infinite range of activity that human nature involves). Even the simple act of describing something as a brain state or biochemical activity is itself evidence of of an entirely 'other' variety of thing.

Biochemical activity does not have the ability to describe itself as something.




Is this supposed to be profound or something????

That we cannot establish its existence independently of a brain state neither confirms that it does not exist independently of brain states nor does it confirm that it does not have a differentiated ontology. It simply means that we cannot yet establish its existence independently of brain states. These facts should come as no surprise given how blindingly rudimentary our understanding of these phenomena actually are. I think it is worth repeating that no one…absolutely no one…has a freakin clue how the physical activity of the brain generates consciousness. Nor does there exist anything remotely resembling an empirically definitive understanding of what consciousness (…’it’…) even is.

…and yet you continuously trot out these stawmen claiming that our inability to locate consciousness independently of brain activity closes the book on so many massive questions of cognitive neuroscience. Is it really necessary to point out how stupidly premature such conclusions are?

Why not?

 

[annnnoid]

Why not?

Here’s a thought tsig…the next time you pick up a handful of leaves, why don’t you ask them why they don’t have the ability to describe themselves as something. How long will it be before you have to accept that you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves. Why is it do you suppose you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves?

 

[annnnoid]

there does not have to be a singular scientific answer - but 'risk' can always be expressed as cost and utility - so yes I can envision science deriving several answers to #2 - and this in part is accomplished by elevating values to something real

I cannot see science coming up with ANY answers to #2. Not that science cannot provide information, some of which might be extremely relevant. But there are a vast range of variables (one of which is the very real limits of what science can evaluate) that can only be effectively adjudicated in reference to qualitative conditions that ONLY experienced human nature has the capacity navigate.

 

[tsig]

Here’s a thought tsig…the next time you pick up a handful of leaves, why don’t you ask them why they don’t have the ability to describe themselves as something. How long will it be before you have to accept that you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves. Why is it do you suppose you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves?

I suspect I'll get better answers from a pile of leaves than some posters here.

 

[BadBoy]

Here’s a thought tsig…the next time you pick up a handful of leaves, why don’t you ask them why they don’t have the ability to describe themselves as something. How long will it be before you have to accept that you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves. Why is it do you suppose you will not be getting an answer from the pile of leaves?

oh, oh ,oh. I know, I know..

Beeecaaause they don't have a brain !!

Now go away and think about that for a while.

 

[BadBoy]

I cannot see science coming up with ANY answers to #2.

I know you cannot see it. One thing that is interesting about these "Mind States" is that not everyone has the same level of complexity of Mind States.

If we are more than the sum of our parts, and the "more" is coming from someplace else, how come some people have better "more" bits than others. (hmm, unless, could it be because their physical brain is different?)

Not that science cannot provide information, some of which might be extremely relevant. But there are a vast range of variables (one of which is the very real limits of what science can evaluate) that can only be effectively adjudicated in reference to qualitative conditions that ONLY experienced human nature has the capacity navigate.

er what?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

Just a formality: #2 is a question. It does not have to and cannot be falsifiable. Any answer can, and that is not hard. One could weigh the chances of immigrants becoming terrorists against the risk of terrorism if refugees are not accomodated. Obviously such a prediction would be falsifiable. Or as to public sentiment, one could make a poll.

Not hard at all.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm sorry, I won't have time to participate further for the next several days. Travelling to visit family during Xmas.

Hans

 

[Aridas]

Just a formality: #2 is a question. It does not have to and cannot be falsifiable. Any answer can, and that is not hard. One could weigh the chances of immigrants becoming terrorists against the risk of terrorism if refugees are not accomodated. Obviously such a prediction would be falsifiable. Or as to public sentiment, one could make a poll.

Not hard at all.

Hans

To poke in, you seem to be missing both the point and going in an irrelevant direction here, given that the answer of #2 was in question, not the question itself. Given its nature, science simply cannot answer open-ended shoulds. Some of the answers to number 2 could, indeed, be falsifiable. Many would not be. Science certainly can help inform one about what options are available and the consequences that would be faced with when choosing whichever option, but how falsifiable the answers are is pretty much limited to whether the values that are arbitrarily chosen are supported or not. In short, the values for evaluation would still need to be chosen separately from the information that science can provide to arrive at an answer to #2, and, in fact, the information that science can provide is unnecessary for producing a valid answer, as is any and all falsifiability.

Naturally, it should be recognized that science was never an answer for everything, merely an incredibly useful tool for gathering information that people will choose to use according to their chosen values, which, of course, may shift in light of new information. JoeBentley's stated concern about people trying to utterly misuse and abuse the nature of science for some woo supporting purpose, is, frankly, a generally reasonable concern to keep in mind, but he and a number of others seem to focus too much on that and forget that science really cannot answer everything of importance without treading outside its inherent limitations. Those who try to use it outside its limitations are, in fact, trying to promote woo of a bent only slightly different than of that they frequently wish to fight.

 

[marplots]

I'm sorry, I won't have time to participate further for the next several days. Travelling to visit family during Xmas.

Hans

Have a nice Christmas!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah yes the ever vague, ever ill defined "qualia." I knew it would come up.

"Science can explain the sensory input but not the feeling."

Variations on this pop up every time we have this discussion and I have zero idea what it means.

What is the difference between the biochemical sensory input and the "feeling?"

 

[Nay_Sayer]

So basically you're dropping all pretense that "skepticism" is actually a quality to strive for and are just gonna use it as an open ended backhanded insult.

Yes he spoke like a true skeptic. He didn't let you shift the burden of proof or special plead your argument.

Well Said. I think we're finally getting to the actual core of this thread.

Since I think the Scientific Method is not credible because of X reasons, Therefore woo woo is real.

 

[Nick227]

But maybe you can explain Nick's argument to me. why is an 'I' or "mind" necessary for the scientific method?

It's not necessary for it. It's necessary to attribute significance to it.

Objective awareness - the subject-object perspective - emerges from a non-dual base as the mind attends to thought narratives. It's a platform, essentially, from which one can create perspective and make pronouncements.

It's very useful, but it's not real.

Science is a fine tool for fiddling around with things to make life better. But a line is crossed when scientists assert that objectively evaluated strategies are inherently more useful than subjectively evaluated ones. This is because the significance attributed to objective evaluation relies on an illusory construct to be meaningful.