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

[Tassman]

Beautiful sentence but not too clear.

In reality this is a statement of intentions. Many problems are solved by science that aroused new problems. Science is a way to solve old problems by means of new unsolved problems about the same things that we thought solved. Nobody knows if this chain will never end. I am not so optimistic as Dennet is because nobody knows if this chain has some unknowable links. The origin of Universe seems to be one of them. Maybe human consciousness is another unsolvable problem. Some of these problems are metaphysics. Analysis can discard them. Other are unavoidable and we have to look for extra-scientific provisional solutions.

What sort of “extra-scientific provisional solutions” do you have in mind? Is there any reason to assume there will be some unknowable links in the scientific chain of discovery? Surely this is getting perilously close to the theist “we don’t know, therefore God” solution to scientific problems otherwise known as 'god-of-the-gaps'.

However, speculations about the future are not scientific in themselves. What a rational sceptic has to do is to manage himself with the current state of positive knowledge. And current science is not able to explain every feature of what we call mind. We ought to cope with limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour and use mental concepts when we have not other choice.

Scientific “speculations” are usually referred to as hypotheses and are an important part of the scientific method. You're assuming, without good reason given the history of scientific advancement, that limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour will be permanently insoluble.

 

[Cheetah]

Ian, you complicate things unnecessarily and it blurs the point.

You seem to agree with me that if (a really, really big IF, I know) you were a brain in a vat, you could not know for sure that you were one, since your experiences would be identical to what you would have experienced as a brain in a scull in a body in the real world.

Just answer yes or no for me, please.

I promise you, it relates directly to the solipsist and the reason David Mo said that all your arguments against it made no sense. Just bear with me, it will make sense.

 

[IanS]

I understand that you have provided an example that, by your own words, does not illustrate what you want it to. You could try again to provide an example that does.

Ha, ha...no.

I said the argument does not necessitate an external reality although the example (brain in a vat) does contain one. It is trivial to think up another example to illustrate the same point, but without an external reality.

Clearer?

If you have another example (instead of the failed brain-in-a-vat example), then what is your other example?

What other example do you produce to show how a disembodied mind can exist without a brain (or any other physically existing cause?).

 

[Cheetah]

I'm coming to that, it's the dreaded...

SOLIPSIST

...or how I understand it anyway.

Was just waiting for your "yes".

 

[IanS]

*You actually can comprehend it, it's not that difficult, you just have to want to. I can help.
**The reason this argument is (actually has to be), accepted is because it does not make any assumptions and relies on impeccable logic. This is the basis of philosophy, and fun. Any argument you can construct, using no assumptions and impeccable logic, has to be accepted no matter how improbable or ridiculous it seems. No one might believe it actually to be true, but you cannot deny it is at least possible.

Re. the first highlight - what is this claimed "impeccable" "argument" for which you chose the complete failure of a "brain-in-a-vat"?

Re. the second highlight - you mean to say that we "cannot deny it is at least possible" for a disembodied mind to exist as a "brain in a vat"? Well that is a claim that you make, it is you who is claiming it is possible ... so it's you who has to show that your claim of a disembodied mind is possible ...

... it is not the job of anyone else to agree or disagree with you when you say we have to admit that it's possible ... we most definitely do not have to admit any such thing ... I don't know whether it could be possible or not, but that claim is YOUR's, so it's YOU who must provide an actual proof for what you just claimed as a certainty when you said "you cannot deny it is at least possible" ...

... so go on, prove that it's possible for a disembodied mind to exist without any external reality.

 

[Cheetah]

You are such a rude person, I wonder why I bother?

Its FUN!

You still have not answered.


"Yes", please.

 

[David Mo]

What sort of “extra-scientific provisional solutions” do you have in mind? Is there any reason to assume there will be some unknowable links in the scientific chain of discovery? Surely this is getting perilously close to the theist “we don’t know, therefore God” solution to scientific problems otherwise known as 'god-of-the-gaps'.



Scientific “speculations” are usually referred to as hypotheses and are an important part of the scientific method. You're assuming, without good reason given the history of scientific advancement, that limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour will be permanently insoluble.

I am sorry. I haven't been precise enough.
God has nothing to do with science, facts and cosmology. It is a superfluous hypothesis, if not contradictory.
I was trying to compare psychology with the natural sciences. I said "extra-scientific" because in psychology it is inevitable to resort to concepts and theories that do not have the level of nature sciences in terms of operative definitions, mathematics, control of variables and predictive power. This is why it is necessary to resort to concepts such as conscious, intentional, emotion, shame, subjective states, etc. and methods such as tests, questionnaires and introspection that are mediated by verbal responses and subjective assessments.
This is the current situation and there is no foresight that it will change in the short or medium term.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts.

Forecasting scientific development is certainly not a scientific discipline, in the sense that the methods of nature sciences are applied. It's history of science. I predict nothing about the limits of science. I say it's unpredictable.

 

[David Mo]

You are such a rude person, I wonder why I bother?

Its FUN!

You still have not answered.


"Yes", please.

I am waiting too. However, a frank answer would surprise me.. I'm pessimistic by nature.

 

[Cheetah]

I'm such an optimist.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Science can't explain consciousness....... yet.

 

[Tassman]

I'm saying that the "imagined premises" of the thought experiment are "undeniably true", not only in the context of the thought experiment, but also in the "real world" that we live in.

"Imagined premises" are not "undeniably true", they are assumptions. They may be true but there is no way to actually show they are true.

 

[theprestige]

Science cannot explain consciousness in the same way that a loving father cannot e get to the end of his young child's endless why's.

But the child grows up, and sees how the world is, and answers their own why's.

When will these amateur philosophers grow up, and learn science?

 

[Tassman]

I am sorry. I haven't been precise enough.
God has nothing to do with science, facts and cosmology. It is a superfluous hypothesis, if not contradictory.

Glad to hear it. I was confused by your reference to the need for “extra-scientific provisional solutions”.

I was trying to compare psychology with the natural sciences. I said "extra-scientific" because in psychology it is inevitable to resort to concepts and theories that do not have the level of nature sciences in terms of operative definitions, mathematics, control of variables and predictive power. This is why it is necessary to resort to concepts such as conscious, intentional, emotion, shame, subjective states, etc. and methods such as tests, questionnaires and introspection that are mediated by verbal responses and subjective assessments.
This is the current situation and there is no foresight that it will change in the short or medium term.

I disagree that natural science is not able to examine the origin and nature of consciousness. All indications are that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system. 'Consciousness' is at bottom a mechanical biological system and therefore accessible to examination by the physical sciences.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts.

Nor with science, it seems.

Forecasting scientific development is certainly not a scientific discipline, in the sense that the methods of nature sciences are applied. It's history of science. I predict nothing about the limits of science. I say it's unpredictable.

“Forecasting scientific developments”, may not be a scientific discipline but developing and testing scientific hypotheses is fundamental to science and this is what I’m talking about.

 

[The Norseman]

As I understand it, a valid argument is concerned with the logical form of the argument, not necessarily the truth of the argument...although the truth value of the argument is implied. OTOH an argument is 'sound' only if it is both valid, and all of its premises can be shown to be actually true.

I think that makes sense, thanks.

Conclusion: the mere existence of impressions doesn't justify the belief that the external world exists.

Good thing that science isn't satisfied with just accepting "the mere existence of impressions" and probes further.

The solipsist gives a further step: How do you know that you have a brain? By means of impressions. Draw your own conclusion, please.

How about you providing an answer? You've stated many times you don't believe in the solipsist position, so instead of you and Cheetah trying to play the Socratic method, please provide one yourself.

I promise you, it relates directly to the solipsist and the reason David Mo said that all your arguments against it made no sense. Just bear with me, it will make sense.

Again, please just state your point instead of trying to elicit a specific answer.

You are such a rude person, I wonder why I bother?

I hope you are teasing here.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Can brains in a vat talk about actual things, such as a tree? No, they can't, they've no experience of any such thing as an actual tree. Perhaps they have an experience of a vat "tree"... but a vat "tree" is not an actual tree.

Likewise, a brain in a vat can not talk of an actual brain in a vat.... perhaps, they can speak of a vat "brain in a vat", but that is totally different than an actual brain in a vat.

We are not brains in a vat, at least not me

 

[Cheetah]

Again, please just state your point instead of trying to elicit a specific answer.

This is basic logic the arguments and points are all true or false.

During this discussion, when I try to make a point and state that A=B, therefore C, D, therefore E,F ( and I also explain why), IansS replies with a very long post that I have real difficulty in following. There seems to be some agreement, but also obviously not. I cannot quite understand where the problem lies.
I'm trying to just start with A=B and get IansS to say "yes, I agree A is equal to B", before I can move on with my argument.
There seems no point in moving on to C,D,E and F if we cannot agree that A=B.

How do you suggest I go about it? I'm open to anything.

 

[David Mo]

I disagree that natural science is not able to examine the origin and nature of consciousness. All indications are that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system. 'Consciousness' is at bottom a mechanical biological system and therefore accessible to examination by the physical sciences.

I am afraid that you confuse two things: having indications that one thing causes the other —in a broad sense— and to be able to translate a proposition from one language into another —establishing an identity between the two.
You cannot produce science on the basis of a mere indication. This is why the problem mind-brain includes some philosophical aspects that are unavoidable. Of course, many scientific data are relevant in this issue, but they are not sufficient to develop a language capable to describe, explain and predict every psychological proposition in terms of neurological responses.

I have read some psychological articles and books lately and I don't know any of them that says other thing. Perhaps you can give here an alternative reference.

“Forecasting scientific developments”, may not be a scientific discipline but developing and testing scientific hypotheses is fundamental to science and this is what I’m talking about.

You could say, given the current situation in the research on the brain, that a complete translation of psychological problems into neurology is predictable. I am afraid that this prediction —right or wrong— is not scientific. Evolution of science is a complicated issue where many determinant circumstances —both socials and internal— are almost impossible to control. However, it would be interesting to see how you can give here an example of that kind of scientific prediction.

 

[David Mo]

Good thing that science isn't satisfied with just accepting "the mere existence of impressions" and probes further.

Good thing, truly. But science plays in other field and with other rules that the solipsist. Science starts with the assumption that in some precise circumstances some impressions correspond to reality. Science never questions this starting point. The solipsist does. This is why the solipsist problem is not scientific, but a philosophical one.

How about you providing an answer? You've stated many times you don't believe in the solipsist position, so instead of you and Cheetah trying to play the Socratic method, please provide one yourself.

See my comment #1194 posted in page 30, 7th February 2018, 08:53 AM, please.

 

[Cheetah]

I think I should paint the bigger picture, it might clarify things.

Sometimes it seems that most people commenting here are of the opinion that the subject under discussion involves opinions. This could not be further from the truth.
The very foundation of this subject is deductive reasoning.
It starts with the classic premise:"I think therefore I am" which is taken as undeniably true.
From there it uses logical deduction to construct different "thought experiments" such as the solipsist and the "brain in a vat".
All these "thought experiments" have to be logically consistent, not only concerning the "thought experiment itself", but in absolute terms, it is a requirement.

The solipsist has been specifically constructed, using deductive reasoning to "fall short" of making any claims about reality at all, it makes none. It uses no false premises at all and the argument is therefore undeniably both valid and true.
It cannot be "useful" in any real sense, apart form being an exercise in logic and deduction, since it makes no claims about reality.
And since it makes no claims about reality it cannot be proven "wrong" using a materialist based argument, such as IansS has been attempting. It is logically impossible, trying it really makes no sense. There is no opinion about this, it is a fact.

This is of course also the foundation of science.
Solipsism, "brain in a vat" and materialism are all equally valid and true up to here, if you want to move further you have to start making assumptions.
Solipsism assumes the "solipsist universe", brain in the vat assumes the brain and the vat and the computer simulating reality and materialism assumes the real world.
It really does not matter that the solipsist universe might appear extremely implausible and the real universe overwhelmingly so. Just as long as it is not logically inconsistent.
Science accepts the world is real and takes that exact same logic further, and that is what science is built on.

IanS seems to insist he can address a solipsist with a materialist argument. I'm busy trying to explain to him why he cannot. I am struggling.

Does that make sense The Norseman, Tassman?

I hope this helps.

 

[Darat]

I think I should paint the bigger picture, it might clarify things.

Sometimes it seems that most people commenting here are of the opinion that the subject under discussion involves opinions. This could not be further from the truth.
The very foundation of this subject is deductive reasoning.
It starts with the classic premise:"I think therefore I am" which is taken as undeniably true.
...snip....

1) that is circular reasoning

2) And since that can't be shown to be true the entire argument from it cannot be said to be "true"