METACRISTI
What happens if we will not be able to disprove materialism but there will exist a lot of unexplained phenomena for the usual materialist approach,for a long period of time,a sort of dead end?I'll tell you what:exactly as now materialism will be credited with the capacity to explain them later.Don't sound this rather as a belief,imposed as 'objective knowledge',a real dogma in this case?
No, not at all. Any time science is faced with a phenomenon that is not completely understood, we can take one of two approaches:
1. We can blindly assume (as you and Ian do) that there must be some supernatural explanation that science cannot understand. If you take this view, scientists might as well all quit and go home, because science cannot investigate the processes by which supernatural events might occur. Fortunately for society, science doesn’t take that approach. Until we have strong evidence showing that a supernatural explanation exists for something, shouldn’t we attempt to explain it using natural phenomena? As a dualist, you want to punt:: you want to assume that there must be some supernatural component to consciousness. As I’ve pointed out, there is absolutely no reason to believe that. If you have no valid reason for believing it, then your dualism is no better than my unicorn theory.
2. The alternative is to do our best to explain unknown phenomena by means of natural laws until we have good reason to believe that natural laws won’t work. The advantage here is that it allows us to continue to do science to investigate the issue. If you just give up and decide that consciousness involves some unknowable supernatural phenomenon, then how can we ever make progress understanding it?
The reality is that extended materialism or dualism are totally compatible with the actual discoveries in neuroscience.
What you are trying to do here is conclude that all theories that can account for the available data are on equal footing. As I’ve already explained, this is not a good argument. My invisible unicorn theory is completely compatible with all known data, too. In fact, for almost anything you think you know about the world, I can construct an almost infinite number of alternative theories that can account for all available data. (Try me.) If we are to know anything at all about anything, we have to be able to discard theories that may be able to explain all available data. Consider this:
1. Theory X can explain all available data. Theory X also makes testable, FALSIFIABLE predictions. If the predictions are not confirmed, theory X is dead. Over time, however, we find that theory X survives test after test after test.
On the other hand,
2. Theory Y can also explain all available data. However, theory Y makes no testable, falsifiable predictions. If Y is not true, there is no way that we can SHOW that it is not true. Therefore, Y continues to exist as an untestable theory.
Do you really think that theory X and theory Y are on equal footing? I don’t.
Again, you seem to want to claim that an inability to prove one's position means that the alternatives are on equal footing. I believe that this is a logical fallacy. As I've explained above, materialism is superior to idealism or dualism because it continues to survive, despite the fact that it makes testable, falsifiable predictions.
I think you did not understand my argument.From observed evidence materialism have indeed more 'confirmations' but as I said above the extended materialism and dualism are totally compatible with this despite the fact that they are not falsifiable right now and have no explanatory power in our scientific hypotheses.
You are mistaken. A materialistic theory of mind is definitely falsifiable. All you have to do is show me a single example of a mind that exists without a brain.
From the point of the scientific method materialism is prefered,is 'superior' for the moment,but does this really mean that materialism will be forever superior? I have no such certitudes,materialism is still only the most confirmed hypothesis and nothing more.
That’s all I have claimed. I have never claimed that materialism has been proven.
As far as I know no one in the neurology field claim that materialism,be it in the form of computational emergence,can explain consciousness beyond all reasonable doubt.As one psychiatrist put it very well:"we observe that some parts of the brain are activated in connection with certain mental states...and that's all".
If a psychiatrist said that, then he is wrong. That is not at all the only evidence in favor of a materialistic theory of mind. Other evidence includes the observation that destruction of the brain CAUSES predictable deficits in conscious experience. Furthermore, electrical stimulation and administration of pharmacological agents also CAUSE predictable effects on the mind. An unconscious person can be restored to consciousness by actions of a doctor that restore normal human brain activity. As I’ve repeatedly explained, normal human brain activity is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness. Does that prove beyond all doubt that there is no supernatural component to consciousness? No, it doesn’t. But, it does mean that a materialistic theory of mind is better than the alternatives.
The stance that materialism can explain consciousness is still an axiom for the moment,a belief,with nothing superior to all other internally coherent and compatible with the observed reality hypotheses.In spite of it's 'superiority' in the frame given by the scientific method,for the moment.
This is illogical. On one hand, you deny that materialism is superior in any way to dualism. Then, in the
very next sentence you concede that materialism is superior scientifically. Furthermore, as I’ve explained, dualism is inferior philosophically also (Occam’s Razor).
Ockham's Razor cannot count as a proof in experimental sciences and in any case are you allowed to use it in logic to make inferences.
I’ve never claimed that it proved that materialism is correct. I’ve claimed that it shows that materialism is MORE LIKELY to be correct. I don’t understand why you can’t see the difference there.
It is only a useful tool to choose between more [equally supported by all valid experiments] hypotheses,on 'pragmatic grounds' entirely.
And that is all I am using it for. (Although dualism is not equally supported by all valid experiments – even you concede that when you concede that materialism is superior scientifically).
I said:
This is circular reasoning. You believe (with no evidence to support this position) that a purely physical system could not become conscious, and to support that position you claim that "no emergent phenomenon becomes conscious. That's the very definition of circular reasoning.
Your inference is totally wrong,no,I don't believe so.I simply made a constatation that no emergent phenomenon is known to become conscious now.Nothing more.
No, you cited this as an argument against materialism, which it isn’t.
I said:
“Again, there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning. If I claim that the universe was created 10 minutes ago by a magical unicorn named Skeezle, you can't disprove my hypothesis. It can explain all available data perfectly well. Yet, is my magical unicorn hypothesis on equal footing with evolution? Of course not. An inability to disprove a hypothesis does not mean that it is on equal footing with the best available hypothesis. “
You see a lot of 'fallacies' when there are none in fact.First of all your example fails the simple logical test of compatibility with the observed reality:indeed we have the empirical evidence that the universe existed before those 10 minutes.
No, my invisible unicorn theory can explain all available data. Remember: my unicorn is magical. Any evidence you could possibly come up with to support your belief that the universe is more than 10 minutes old, I will claim that Skeezle magically created that evidence to fool you.
Even if the time were,let's say 10,000 years ago,the reality is that we cannot make the difference between an universe created by your unicorn [or by God] 10,000 years ago,but having the same characteristics with what science tells us today;that is rocks on Earth seem to have billions of years and so on.This is the sad truth.
I don’t understand this paragraph. In any case, I can claim that my invisible unicorn theory can explain rocks that seem to be billions of years old. I can claim that Skeezle created the rocks 10 minutes ago, in their present form, to fool us. Should my invisible unicorn theory be taken seriously? Of course not.
My invisible unicorn theory is inferior to evolution, even though it can explain all available data. THAT is the point I’m trying to get you to understand.
Again and again in your post you seem to think that I am claiming that materialism has been proven. Why you think this is beyond me. I have ****NEVER***** claimed that materialism has been proven. My claim has only been that materialism is BETTER.
Read with attention my signature,especially the second quote.And become aware,once and forever,of the differences between belief and 'objective knowledge'.
Nothing in your signature addresses my arguments.
Edited to clear up a few formatting problems..
)