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

[Dancing David]

Philosophy can do one thing: to show that there are contradictions in something. And in this writing there are several:

It cannot be said that there is much evidence (“a lot of evidence”) that the world exists and that there is no evidence (“it is not possible literally prove”) that the world exists. I guess this happens to IanS because he uses "evidence" and "proof" in two different ways. Either he doesn't notice or he doesn't say it.

IanS fails again into a contradiction when he says that you can't prove that when you think that you are thinking you are thinking. This is because he confuses thinking with thinking that something is true. My thoughts about the Self who is thinking (I am this or that) may be mistaken, but that I am thinking when I am thinking cannot be false in any way.

These kinds of mistakes are typical of people who don't know much philosophy. Reading and discussing philosophy helps us to sharpen our analytical abilities. When a philosopher sees this kind of mistakes, he realizes it right away.

Philosophy is also useful in helping us to better address some problems that have no scientific solution, but which we cannot avoid in our lives. Problems of morality, politics and others within the realm of uncertainty, which is very broad.

Of course —and here I agree— philosophy, especially in the past, tended to make the mistake of believing that it can replace science and come to know parallel universes. It's what is often called "metaphysics." Philosophy is also essential to unmake the mistakes of metaphysics. For example, the positivism that you practice. Because —believe it or not— the most tremendous enemies of philosophy, like you two, are also making philosophy even if you do not know. It is called positivism. Be careful that it does not happen to you like the bourgeois gentleman, who spoke in prose without knowing it.

Maybe you don't like to discuss such abstruse topics as solipsism. Is your right. But do not believe that having a positivist philosophy authorizes you to despise any other philosophy. A thought that is not sharpened in the debate stagnates. And this is usually positivists' vice who think of their beliefs as a dogma.

Great points, this forum has always had camps of users, some are willing to discuss and others just to argue. It seems more exaggerated on this sub-fora than others.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe you don't like to discuss such abstruse topics as solipsism.

The word you were looking for was "useless".

Solipsism is not hard to understand. It's just pointless and silly.

 

[IanS]

Great points, this forum has always had camps of users, some are willing to discuss and others just to argue. It seems more exaggerated on this sub-fora than others.

If what I am writing comes across as arguing merely for the sake of it, and not as if I am willing/trying to discuss what any of us thinks, believes or claims, then I have to apologise for giving entirely the wrong impression (or else somehow, some people have apparently got the wrong impression for some other reason).

What I am saying as a general overall comment on philosophy as a formal academic subject, and specifically here when people present claims such as Solipsism and the idea that perhaps no reality exists outside of our minds, is that I do not think that philosophical idea holds up to any scrutiny ... and I think it also does not agree with what we can detect as "evidence".

But on the wider point - afaik, it's true that from ancient times philosophers thought they were discovering true answers about the way the world around us worked. And they were doing that mostly by relying upon pure intellect and what seemed to them to be logical argument. That seemed fine until about 1600 AD when Galileo and others began to realise that the reason why the answers given by both philosophy and religion were all turning out to be wrong, was precisely because they were relying on the belief that the universe could be entirely understood merely by thinking about it and deciding what seemed logical.

At first sight that idea of logical thinking probably seemed an inescapable truth. What else could anyone do? How could you ever do better than that? Well, from the first beginnings of what we now call modern science (e.g. starting approx. 1600-1700), what became increasingly apparent was that that supposed logical thinking always contained all sorts of personal bias and habitual long-time erroneous beliefs. And what changed that was the realisation that we needed to take actual measurements of things, to make real physical observations, and use real mathematical calculations...

... still that method was not infallible (for all sorts of reasons), and true it did require certain new inventions such as the pendulum and the telescope, which were not available to ancient philosophers ... but it was only from that time onwards, with the use of that scientific approach, that we started to find answers which were quite different to those proposed throughout most of earlier philosophy, and of course very different to what religion had always taught as the truth. And they were also answers which could be tested, checked, and shown to be as close to "correct" (i.e. "true fact") as anyone could reasonably demand within the limits of instrumentation and methods of the time.

And the point of saying that, is that the success of science has really killed philosophy (and religious belief) as a credible way of claiming to understand the world around us. So that - if any of us wants a credible answer to any questions about anything in the universe around us, inc. questions about humans, the way humans think and what processes that involves (it requires a physically existing organ called a "brain" etc.), then the only credible way of deciding the most reliable answers to any of that is science, and not philosophy or religion.

I am saying that science has really killed off philosophy (and religion) as claimed ways of telling us what the world around us is really like. And as an example that I've used here before - that's why in advanced democratic societies the courts have come to rely increasingly on scientific expert witness evidence, and why neither defence or prosecution lawyers are ever again likely to call either priests or philosophers to persuade a judge and jury. And that was not always the case. On the contrary, in the more distant past afaik it was very often the case that a court would rely on religious witnesses to convince a jury or convince the judges, and I expect they also often called philosophers to advise the court on what was believed to be right vs. wrong .... but that is not the case any more ... instead what is the case is that a legal ruling for what we should accept as right vs. wrong relies more-&-more on the evidence of science ... and the reason for that (to repeat) is that science has more than proved its' credentials, and in doing so, it has unintentionally removed virtually all the credentials once claimed by philosophers and theists.

What has that to do with the subject in this thread? Well I hope the answer is obvious and inescapable. But if not - the answer is that science has proved itself hugely more believable and credible than philosophy when comes to any question such as whether or not scientists are right to regard what they detect and explain about the world around as "real" ... and by the way, it is certainly not credible to argue that scientists do not really believe that they are detecting real things and describing those things accurately ... they do "all" believe that the evidence and the established Theories are completely consistent with what we know as "reality" (and I only put "all" in quotes to emphasise that with perhaps 10 million scientists in the world, it's inevitable that some of them will say almost anything, including even the most absurd and nutty things ... but the vast majority of scientists in the relevant expert fields of core physics, most parts of chemistry and maths, and large parts of biology, do agree that they are detecting and explaining "reality").

 

[Dancing David]

No doubt

 

[Belz...]

Always doubt!

 

[ynot]

The word you were looking for was "useless".

Solipsism is not hard to understand. It's just pointless and silly.

Not pointless and silly to those that really, really want their individual consciousness to be an immortal spirit or sole that lives forever; and really, really want there to be an extended cosmic consciousness that’s an invisible, magical sky-daddy that will love them and look after them forever. It’s all merely thinly disguised and denied theism from those that deny they’re theists.

But otherwise I agree . . . “useless, pointless and silly”.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The materialist position is exactly that of a religion in that it cannot be shaken by scientific evidence, even in principle. It is entirely faith-based and its acceptance requires nothing more than a willingness to ignore scientific progress.

First materialism was all about 'stuff'. Only bits of stuff were real and nothing more. Then we discovered fields, but instead of accepting that materialism had been proven incorrect, materialists simply included 'fields' into their definition and pretended nothing had happened.

Along came quantum physics, which shows there is actually no 'stuff' at all, just waveform, fields and potential, and suddenly materialism is a belief in 'waveform, fields and potential', but no 'stuff'. The fact that the original meaning of 'materialism' is entirely negated is hand-waved away, it's business as usual.

And now we have the prospect of exotic states such dark matter and dark energy. We don't know what they are as they have not even been detected, but luckily we can be sure that if they are found to exist materialists will shoe-horn them into their definition of 'materialism' and claim, without any sense of irony or embarrassment, that they were right all along.

It's clear that even if some field of consciousness is scientifically proven to be fundamental to the universe, materialists will simply cram it into their definition of 'materialism' and go on pretending they haven't been wrong for the past 2,500 years.

The Religion forum is an appropriate place for such 'discussions.'

Your argument is a semantic one, not a scientific one.

But don't worry, you're not the only one who confuses "what we call something" vs "what something actually is". This is the problem of most of the people who don't understand who science works.

 

[LarryS]

Have you ever had an experience something like this:? You're in a room where a few people are talking to one another, but you're distracted by something else so you're not participating in or paying attention to the conversation. Suddenly you hear one of them say,

"I don't know, but maybe I can ask LarryS."

And you speak up and respond:

"Maybe you can ask me about what?"

You have to ask the question because you weren't listening to the conversation. What attracted your attention was the mention of your name.

But the words "maybe i can ask" were spoken before your name. So how did you manage to know them? How did you manage to "be present" retroactively, two seconds in the past?

Being-present itself cannot be primary if that "presence" as you experience it requires memory (however short-term). Yet that appears to be the case.

Furthermore, a concussion, seizure, certain drugs, or other phenomenon that can impair short-term memory will, by all accounts of people who have experienced these things, affect the nature of that "being present" experience or whether you have it at all.

I think you are defining 'being present' as being alert to one's environment, hearing, touching, hearing and etc. That is far more than what I mean by 'being present' . . . 'being present, being aware' I mean: existing, being aware; it does not (necessarily) include being aware of anything. Referencing the senses and surroundings are way down the road from my intro claim.

 

[ynot]

I think you are defining 'being present' as being alert to one's environment, hearing, touching, hearing and etc. That is far more than what I mean by 'being present' . . . 'being present, being aware' I mean: existing, being aware; it does not (necessarily) include being aware of anything. Referencing the senses and surroundings are way down the road from my intro claim.

Explain how it's possible to be aware without being aware of anything (without involving magical thinking).

 

[IanS]

No doubt

Ha ; OK, well I appreciate your brevity (in contrast to many of my posts, which I know are too long).

Though I should say that in most if not all of my posts I do try to keep stressing the need for caution in everything that any of us may think we "know" as obvious or "certain" ... so of course I agree there must always be some room for doubt (however unrealistic or unlikely that may seem for many things).

 

[David Mo]

The word you were looking for was "useless".

Solipsism is not hard to understand. It's just pointless and silly.

It depends on what you mean by useful. I think the debate of solipsism is useful because forces us to raise some basic problems of the foundations of knowledge. Whatever the outcome can be one leaves the debate less dogmatic.

Not pointless and silly to those that really, really want their individual consciousness to be an immortal spirit or sole that lives forever; and really, really want there to be an extended cosmic consciousness that’s an invisible, magical sky-daddy that will love them and look after them forever. It’s all merely thinly disguised and denied theism from those that deny they’re theists.

But otherwise I agree . . . “useless, pointless and silly”.

It is not true. Solipsism is the black beast of materialism, because it denies the existence of matter, and religion also , because it denies the existence of God and the world. Descartes -who raised the issue- fought solipsism by "demonstrating" that God exists.

In reality, the solipsist does not really exist among philosophers - only among participants in philosophy forums, which is something else. I don't know any solipsist philosopher. That is so because it is used as a critique against rival theories. An opponent is accused that his theory involves solipsism and he have to prove that he is not, because no one wants to be a solipsist.

 

[Belz...]

It depends on what you mean by useful. I think the debate of solipsism is useful because forces us to raise some basic problems of the foundations of knowledge. Whatever the outcome can be one leaves the debate less dogmatic.

The only use of solipsism is as an example of terrible thinking. Any teenager can come to that conclusion, but it's stepping back out of it that's important.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Such an interesting page of posts to read through ... ... a thank-you from me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not pointless and silly to those that really, really want their individual consciousness to be an immortal spirit or sole that lives forever; and really, really want there to be an extended cosmic consciousness that’s an invisible, magical sky-daddy that will love them and look after them forever. It’s all merely thinly disguised and denied theism from those that deny they’re theists.

But otherwise I agree . . . “useless, pointless and silly”.

I don't think solipsism is a theistic POV. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite, really. If it's impossible to say that nothing exists outside of your own consciousness, then it's impossible to say that God exists, unless you're positing that God is merely a part of your consciousness - in which case, you're tacitly admitting that God is something you made up.

I think ultimately, logically, it has to be conceded that it's impossible to say for sure whether anything exists outside of your own consciousness. I do agree with the majority, though, that this is an entirely useless way of looking at the world and that it's necessary to act as if the rest of the world exists after all.

 

[Dancing David]

Ha ; OK, well I appreciate your brevity (in contrast to many of my posts, which I know are too long).

Though I should say that in most if not all of my posts I do try to keep stressing the need for caution in everything that any of us may think we "know" as obvious or "certain" ... so of course I agree there must always be some room for doubt (however unrealistic or unlikely that may seem for many things).

I certainly user to write huge posts and may do so again.
I am mainly checking on break

 

[ynot]

I don't think solipsism is a theistic POV. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite, really. If it's impossible to say that nothing exists outside of your own consciousness, then it's impossible to say that God exists, unless you're positing that God is merely a part of your consciousness - in which case, you're tacitly admitting that God is something you made up.

I was having a go at solipsism in a loose/extended sense in which some believe consciousness per se is all that exists. That’s why I said “extended cosmic consciousness “. Everyone has a personal consciousness (spirit/soul) and there’s an all powerful, all knowing, all present, cosmic consciousness (god).

Why would anyone want and believe that consciousness exists independently of the brain when there’s absolutely no credible evidence it does, or even can? Obviously to allow personal consciousness (spirit/soul) to survive brain death. Pure theism.

 

[LarryS]

Explain how it's possible to be aware without being aware of anything (without involving magical thinking).

It doesn't involve magical thinking, it is not thinking.
Conceptually think of it as the time-gaps between perceptions, thoughts, memories, etc. Have you noticed that while falling asleep (as an example), thoughts, impressions, etc. slow down and spread out - with extended gaps of simply being aware . . . without being aware of anything, no thoughts, no memories, no body awareness.
Experientially, we establish we are aware because of what we are aware of - the clock on the wall, cup of coffee, etc. Typically we establish we are aware by being aware of something . . . however, (with practice), we can establish we are aware by locating awareness itself. The language we might use is 'being aware of being aware', but the experience is simply 'being present, being aware'.

 

[ynot]

It doesn't involve magical thinking, it is not thinking.
Conceptually think of it as the time-gaps between perceptions, thoughts, memories, etc. Have you noticed that while falling asleep (as an example), thoughts, impressions, etc. slow down and spread out - with extended gaps of simply being aware . . . without being aware of anything, no thoughts, no memories, no body awareness.
Experientially, we establish we are aware because of what we are aware of - the clock on the wall, cup of coffee, etc. Typically we establish we are aware by being aware of something . . . however, (with practice), we can establish we are aware by locating awareness itself. The language we might use is 'being aware of being aware', but the experience is simply 'being present, being aware'.

Naval-gazing, belief-wank masquerading as “enlightenment” that can only be understood by others that are similarly “enlightened” .

Even if "we can establish we are aware by locating awareness itself" were true - So what? What's gained? What's changed? What's improved? What's the point?

I would call that magical thinking.

 

[Fudbucker]

Several people have brought up the fact that we act as if we live in a materialistic world as evidence that we live in a materialistic world (i.e., things are what they seem).

I wonder: do these people act as if they have free will? Do they feel guilt over choices they've made? Do they find themselves blaming others for making wrong choices? Are they morally outraged at certain crimes, like school shootings?

Of course. Does that mean free will and morality exist?

 

[David Mo]

The only use of solipsism is as an example of terrible thinking. Any teenager can come to that conclusion, but it's stepping back out of it that's important.

Of course. Any teenager can write the Metaphisical Meditations, A Treatise of Human Nature and the Critique of Pure Reason.

By the way, have you read them?