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

[David Mo]

You don't seem to apply that to the solpolist - they need to prove that they exist just as much as the realist needs to prove their reality exists.

Stop! I can no more!
If you don't see that you cannot say "I am something that is thinking therefore there is not any thing that is thinking" I can not provide more arguments. I throw in the towel! Ka-goda!

 

[Fudbucker]

But it isn't. It rests on the idea that what we experience is in fact "real" i.e. an assumption that at least a reality exists.

You're going out on a limb of woo here, Darat. It's one thing to doubt whether other people exist. It's another to doubt whether you exist. That's loonier than anything any theist has ever come up with.

 

[Darat]

Stop! I can no more!
If you don't see that you cannot say "I am something that is thinking therefore there is not any thing that is thinking" I can not provide more arguments. I throw in the towel! Ka-goda!

Sorry.

One last attempt.

I look at an optical illusion that looks like it is moving. My experience is that I am looking at something moving. But I'm not, I just think I am.

For all the solpolist knows they are simply an illusion of an experience created by a computer simulation. The solpolist has to assume that their awareness/experience/thinking is the real thing.

 

[Darat]

You're going out on a limb of woo here, Darat. It's one thing to doubt whether other people exist. It's another to doubt whether you exist. That's loonier than anything any theist has ever come up with.

Read my other posts, I've already covered that point.

 

[Belz...]

More than 50% of things in my mind have consistency: the landscape I'm looking at through my window under the rain is perfectly consistent, my wife who comes to ask me for a book is fully consistent, the computer I write on is fully consistent, etc.

And? If I imagine, hallucinate or write something, that fiction will be inconsistent. Not so with the things we consider real. The ability to predict the same results consistently is what separates reality from the rest. I'm satisfied that this demonstrates that this reality is not dependant upon my mind.

Which is a restatement of the circular logic of "I think therefore I am" - it requires an assumption.

I challenge you to find another explanation: you experience something. At the very least, there's an observer.

 

[acbytesla]

You "wake up" in the middle of a dream, and continue dreaming. You've never had a lucid dream?

But even in normal dreams, you don't become retarded.

Even reading your Wikipedia entry, I'm left not really knowing what it is. So I must say 'no'. What i do know. Is that like consciousness, the dream lucid or not, is a product of the mind and not something outside if it.

 

[IanS]

There is an assumption of mind with no direct evidence

Well there is of course direct evidence for what we call the human "mind". The evidence for that fills almost all the research papers not only in things like psychology, neuroscience and medicine, but it really also includes everything ever discovered and explained by all of science. In fact it includes everything ever described in history as things that anyone or anything was said to have done from biblical times, pre-biblical times, the entirety of human history, the entirety of the history of all life on this planet back 3 billion years, and in fact the entire history of the universe back to the big bang 13.8 billion years ago.

The evidence of all of that, is evidence for things that we call "reality".

Is there some honest genuine reason why we really should doubt that any of that ever really existed? Such that it is somehow just a figment of imagination produced in our thoughts created by a brain which the philosophers claim does not exist? Well, if they say that those thoughts exist without any brain, then it's definitely their job to show how any such thoughts can be produced without any brain (or anything "real" that acts like a brain) ...

... so what is their explanation for how consciousness and thoughts exist without any brain? What is causing the effect we call "consciousness" or "thoughts" if there is no brain?

Science says that it is the brain which produces the effect of "conscious thinking". And it produces a vast mountain of tested research evidence to support that conclusion ... what is the alternative explanation from philosophers who deny the existence of reality such as a brain, and claim instead that "consciousness" appears without any need for the reality of a brain or any other reality?


Separate issue – Belz … Not to argue about this, but - you cannot say it is “self evident” that something called “conscious thinking” is taking place as an unarguable certainty. Because that is precisely the argument that solipsist philosophers are ruling out! They are claiming that regardless of how much evidence science produces, and regardless of how obvious and self-evident reality may seem to us, that is not good enough because a belief that things are “self-evident” does not make it true ... it does not make anything a matter of “certainty”, i.e. it is not an actual “proof”. IOW – the solipsist argument is actually insisting upon a scientific “proof of certainty”. But as I said above – science is not actually claiming certainty (for anything!) … however philosophy IS claiming certainty when it says that we can be certain that we are “thinking” … OK, well if that is actually a certainty (and not merely something believed to be "self evident") then they must be able to provide a literal “proof” of that. And in doing so they will have to show a proof for what is producing that effect that we call “conscious thinking”.

 

[Belz...]

Separate issue – Belz … Not to argue about this, but - you cannot say it is “self evident” that something called “conscious thinking” is taking place as an unarguable certainty. Because that is precisely the argument that solipsist philosophers are ruling out!

Thanks, but I didn't say that. I said we have experiences, not thoughts.

 

[IanS]

Here's another idea for people here who are supporting solipsism as at least a credible or useful claim. Or even for anyone who agree's that we can be “certain” that we at least have conscious thinking “minds” -

- even if you cannot give an actual “proof” that you are thinking conscious thoughts, describe to the rest of us anything at all about those thoughts which does not in fact require reality for you even to ever to make any claim of anything at all about your thoughts … can you do that? …

… point is – I think it will probably prove impossible for you to offer anything at all about any such thoughts, without it immediately confirming an admission of reality.

So maybe someone would like to try that!

 

[LarryS]

When someone claims that reality is independent and physical, whether or not they make such a claim under the banner of Science or not - that is a philosophical claim.

 

[IanS]

When someone claims that reality is independent and physical, whether or not they make such a claim under the banner of Science or not - that is a philosophical claim.

The philosophical claim here is that reality is NOT "physical! Here the philosophical claim is that no such reality exists at all!

 

[LarryS]

The philosophical claim here is that reality is NOT "physical! Here the philosophical claim is that no such reality exists at all!

No, whether someone claims that reality is independent and physical, or reality is consciousness ( or whatever ) - - - both are philosophical claims.

 

[theprestige]

You don't need to assume anything (including materialism), which has been Larry's point for about a dozen pages now.

I haven't been following Larry's point closely, so I'll take your word for it.

But.

If you're going to try to make predictions about the real world, you do have to assume at least that the world is predictable.

 

[IanS]

Thanks, but I didn't say that. I said we have experiences, not thoughts.

Well if by "experiences" you mean anything that you perceive as "thoughts", then you are talking about "conscious thoughts". But that aside - what do you mean by "we" in that sentence when you said "I said we have experiences" ... what is this thing called "we"? who or what is that? ...

... are you automatically assuming that a person with a brain exists to be having any such "experiences" or "thoughts"? If not, then where did any "we" come from in the first place?

That sounds to me just like a repeat of Descartes saying "I think therefore I am", and offering that as a proof that he exists. Well, I agree that he exists (I think reality does of course exist), but when he begins with "I think therefore ...", he is assuming his preferred answer from the outset by requiring himself to exist in the first place before he produces any such thinking!

And just to be clear - I am not arguing about any of this ... I'm just trying to point out why the philosophical idea of solipsism is fatally flawed (imho).

 

[Belz...]

Well if by "experiences" you mean anything that you perceive as "thoughts", then you are talking about "conscious thoughts".

No, I mean much broader than that: there are experiences that I witness. Whether they are my own thoughts or they come from outside of the observer is irrelevant. It's pretty obvious that I am observing something.

But that aside - what do you mean by "we" in that sentence when you said "I said we have experiences" ... what is this thing called "we"? who or what is that? ...

It depends on what you mean by "is".

... are you automatically assuming that a person with a brain exists to be having any such "experiences" or "thoughts"? If not, then where did any "we" come from in the first place?

Irrelevant to the question. And this is coming from me. I hate solipsism with a passion.

 

[LarryS]

If you're going to try to make predictions about the real world, you do have to assume at least that the world is predictable.

Yes, and one suggested reason for perceived predictability is that reality is physical and independent. However, we have not, and can't locate this independent physical reality because logically we can't find anything that lies outside of awareness. So this definition of reality as 'independent and physical' is assigning one possible set of attributes that seem to work - ultimately it's circular.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and one suggested reason for perceived predictability is that reality is physical and independent.

It's the best explanation for the discrepancy between 'reality' and anything else. It's not 100% certain, but no one is asking for that.

However, we have not, and can't locate this independent physical reality because logically we can't find anything that lies outside of awareness.

And we should care about this because?

So this definition of reality as 'independent and physical' is assigning one possible set of attributes that seem to work - ultimately it's circular.

No, that's not what "circular" means.

 

[surreptitious57]

Any ontological claim about the nature of reality is philosophical regardless of what the claim actually is
But it cannot be scientifically determined because science just deals with observable phenomena and its
properties. So has absolutely nothing at all to say about the reality that such phenomena operate within

 

[surreptitious57]

The bottom line is that mind independent physical reality is taken to be true. But it cannot actually be determined
because mind independent experience is simply not possible. It cannot ever be determined because all knowledge
and experience has to be processed through the mind. So it is therefore a known unknown and an eternal one too

 

[Fudbucker]

I haven't been following Larry's point closely, so I'll take your word for it.

But.

If you're going to try to make predictions about the real world, you do have to assume at least that the world is predictable.

Right, and Hume covered that brilliantly with his riddle of induction.