The relationship between science and materialism

[chriswl]

Okay, from what I've read the only thing I can put together as JustAToysRUsKid's actual position is that since science can't actually explain WHY our mental processes create that wonderous phenomenon of awareness, we must throw out the entire scientific method completely.

I don't think anyone wants to abandon science. No philosopher would be crazy enough to argue that. But many early 20th century philosophers (and they seem to be coming back in vogue) were uncomfortable with science and wanted to relegate the scientific worldview to "just an other way of looking at the world." I would have thought that postmodernism would have tested this idea to destruction, but apparently not.

If we believe that humans (and our consciousness) are a temporary, accidental occurance in a vast non-sentient universe that doesn't care about us, then anything other than physicalism seems absurd. I think all non-physicalist positions, nowadays, only make sense if we assume there is some way in which humanity is actually the point of the universe, that we are in a sense what the universe is here for. Without this quasi-religious belief why would anyone think that human consciousness on the one hand and the trillions upon trillions of galaxies, on the other hand should be accorded similar weight in our scheme of things?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I will not be able to get you to understand my position unless I first get you to work out what your own position is.

I don't see why I must first adopt a false position, before I am capable of understanding your true position. It sounds like more mysticism to me.

However I am perfectly willing to be accommodating. Assume I believe whatever you like, and explain your case on that basis. If you actually have a positive case, rather than a collection of attacks on other positions, this should be no problem.

Only by the process of finding out what is wrong with the way you currently think about will you be able to see what I am saying.

It certainly sounds like you are advocating more mysticism. I would rather you just stated your case, rather than trying to get us to jump through these arbitrary intellectual hoops.

You seem to be trying very, very hard to avoid ever responding to what I said, in that response to #836 you asked me to make. Why all these evasions, Geoff?

 

[Melendwyr]

Postmodernism is incapable of testing or evaluating *any* idea. Its insistence that no one be permitted to do so is the only reason it's managed to persist so long.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But there are problems that your system has also. Following on from my last post, and repeating a question you didn't answer from a few days ago, you evidently believe that p-zombies are logically possible.....

They aren't possible according to my position. They are possible according to most of the positions you defend.

What ensures that they don't exist?

Logic.

Why do we live in a world peopled by "real" conscious beings and not mere biological automatons?

Good question.

For supervenience physicalism the mind and brain are so tightly associated that this question can never arise - if I know I am conscious then I know that people with similar brains to me must be conscious too.

Yes, nobody wants to be the solipsist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Dark Jaguar and I guess this is directed at me.

Okay, from what I've read the only thing I can put together as JustAToysRUsKid's actual position is that since science can't actually explain WHY our mental processes create that wonderous phenomenon of awareness, we must throw out the entire scientific method completely.

No. But we should not think the scientific method is the best method for approaching all sorts of problems.

Tonight the pope attacked science, pretty much in general. This is also a serious problem.

I'm not sure I follow. Science can't explain why the universe exists at all, nor can it explain WHY the laws of physics are the way they are. It can state what magnetism is, and it can state what can create it, but as of yet it can't say WHY or HOW such an arrangement actually goes about creating a magnetic force.

So? So there's some unexplained stuff. Why is that such a big deal? Is it your position that since science is unable to explain the "ultimate cause" of all that is, it has to throw out it's entire viewpoint?

No. Absolutely No.

We must be capable of attaining ultimate knowledge (if such a thing can exists) or abandon all pretense of knowledge whatsoever? What purpose does that serve?

None.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This thread is not about my position, but about yours.

This thread is reaching it's natural conclusion. What's your take on this stuff?

You have not asked (until just recently) about mine, but instead made assumptions about what my philosophy was.

I'm asking now.

 

[hammegk]

Actually, why is it impossible for a computer to be conscious, from an idealist point of view? I thought everything was mind anyway.

The point with the computer is HPC, not "consciousness". The computer is not conscious in the same sense every non-living mechanism is not conscious.

HPC is the most complex level of consciousness we know of, and yes, for an idealist, that which comprises "what-is" is "consciousness".

Isn't the existence of physical things the "hard problem" for you?

Since I consider what we consider matter at any level an epiphenomena sfaik I really don't have a problem.

We could begin to consider the energy part of what we name matter/energy as an interesting subject for consideration. Above the atomic level QED describes our I/O; the implications of QCD, and strings/gravitons or what have you, is unknown as we work back up to the QED perception level.

I think all non-physicalist positions, nowadays, only make sense if we assume there is some way in which humanity is actually the point of the universe, that we are in a sense what the universe is here for.

How anthropocentric. I'd rather say idealism -- coupled with the results of scientific analyses -- suggests the underlying consciousness strives for ever greater complexities of consciousness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Kev

I don't see why I must first adopt a false position, before I am capable of understanding your true position. It sounds like more mysticism to me.

Then ignore it.

However I am perfectly willing to be accommodating. Assume I believe whatever you like, and explain your case on that basis.

I try to believe as little as possible.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Then ignore it.

I'm not dogmatic about it. I'm open to the possibility that you can explain why this isn't mysticism, even though it sounds like it is.

Who knows? There might be a legitimate reason why the usual methods of rational discussion and argument can't be used to explain your position.

If you stick your head in the sand instead of responding to what I post, though, we will never know.

I try to believe as little as possible.

You asked me to respond to your post #836, so I did. Then instead of responding in turn, you decided that it was really important that I declare a metaphysical position first. So I said "Fine, look, pretend I declared whichever position you want me to declare, it's all good. Just respond to what I posted". Your response is to post a non-answer and hide.

Is there anything else I can do to smooth your way to finally posting a sensible response? I'm beginning to think that you have no intention of engaging in rational discussion of your position.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Interesting. Look at this gunky definition of awareness on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

~~ Paul

"Gunky" is right.


Edit: "Meaningless" would be a better description.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm not dogmatic about it. I'm open to the possibility that you can explain why this isn't mysticism, even though it sounds like it is.

Mysticism, by definition, is beyond description. If it was describable, it would not be mysticism.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Mysticism, by definition, is beyond description. If it was describable, it would not be mysticism.

I can describe it as pretentious twaddle used to fool the gullible. See, it isn't beyond description at all. It just claims to be beyond description.

Similarly, I think it is at least possible that your position can be understood perfectly without all of this jumping-through-hoops. You just claim that it can only be understood by jumping through hoops.

Is there anything else I can do to smooth your way to finally posting a sensible response? I'm beginning to think that you have no intention of engaging in rational discussion of your position.

 

[Piggy]

Was that someone turning tail and running?

Not exactly, but close. It's someone admitting defeat and walking away. There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that I will ever be able to communicate with you inside your philosophy-induced fog. And you ain't coming out. Because you like it there. So by all means, enjoy yourself.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi Kevin

Since you clearly want to continue this.....

Previously I pointed out where you had pulled a fast one in your "proof" that physicalism could not possibly be true.

It was a proof that non-eliminative materialism is incoherent. And it was a valid proof. Nothing you said changed that.

In post #836 you appear to be trying to salvage your "proof" by backtracking and creating some purely terminological confusion about the P1 and P2 we established earlier.

The confusion is all terminological. Does that make it not matter?

One of your two claims is that physicalists want to use "physical" to refer to two different things. Well done, Sherlock. If you're a physicalist, physical refers to an astronomically large number of differentiable things. That is not a problem, nor is it a problem if someone conflates brains, apples and oranges as all being physical if they are a physicalist.

When you're a physicalist, everything is supposed to be physical. Unfortunately this leads to the elimination of minds.

Your other claim is that "subjective experience" is undefined (or undefinable) in physicalism, which is just false.You can define it as the physical processes that are going on when a being has experiences.

The whole point in this thread is a demonstration that you cannot, in fact, do as you claim. That is why I want you to define some terms for me. If you would do so, I could show you that it is impossible to define subjective experience and also defend physicalism.

You might try to claim at this point that I am being circular, but nothing of the sort is going on.

What is going on is that you are making claims you cannot back up. Define your terms and I will show you that your position is not only circular, but also illogical.

To pop your "proof" all we need are consistent ways of interpreting P1 and P2 in physicalist terms, to falsify the claim that there are no such consistent ways of interpreting them.

No, Kevin, that won't help you.

We don't even need to show that these interpretations might be true, since all we are doing at the moment is showing that they are not internally contradictory.

Yep.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Not exactly, but close. It's someone admitting defeat and walking away. There is absolutely no way on God's green earth that I will ever be able to communicate with you inside your philosophy-induced fog. And you ain't coming out. Because you like it there. So by all means, enjoy yourself.

I'm trying to life the fog of physicalism. Everything looks pretty clear to me. Physicalism is either incoherent or insane.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It was a proof that non-eliminative materialism is incoherent. And it was a valid proof. Nothing you said changed that.

Your proof rested on your (false) claim that we had agreed that we could not define "physical" to refer to all P1s and all P2s. As I and others pointed out at the time nobody had ever agreed about that with you, and there was absolutely no reason we could not define "physical" that way if we wanted to.

It's not a valid proof.

The confusion is all terminological. Does that make it not matter?

If your whole point all along was just that the naive application of Descarte-influenced labels to the brain didn't quite work, why didn't you say so at the start?

This is just you retreating in circles again, I think. As soon as we take our eye off you, you will go back to pretending that there is something more important at stake than mere labels.

When you're a physicalist, everything is supposed to be physical. Unfortunately this leads to the elimination of minds.

No.

It merely leads to the assertion that "mind" is a label that points vaguely toward a certain kind of structure or process found in physical human bodies.

The whole point in this thread is a demonstration that you cannot, in fact, do as you claim. That is why I want you to define some terms for me. If you would do so, I could show you that it is impossible to define subjective experience and also defend physicalism.

I did exactly that in the very post you are replying to! A physicalist would say that "subjective experience" is a label that gestures towards particular kinds of physical events that go on when a being is having experiences.

What is going on is that you are making claims you cannot back up. Define your terms and I will show you that your position is not only circular, but also illogical.

We have already chased you around this circle. You demand definitions that can exclude immaterialism, then you reject any definitions that do so on the grounds that they beg the question, and then you change the subject so the heat can die down before you try the same routine again.

No, Kevin, that won't help you.

That's a curious assertion.

Your proof explicitly rests on the claim that a physicalist cannot define what is physical in terms of P1 and P2. I have explicitly shown that claim to be false, by defining the physicalists view of what is physical in terms of P1 and P2.

How can you state this "will not help me"? I have shown your proof to be invalid. It's time to go back to the drawing board and get a new one, because that one is dead.

Mind you, I can make this clearer by shortening your "proof" for you.

Geoff's "Proof"
Premise Zero (Not disclosed): Subjective experiences are spooky.
Premise One: There is nothing spooky.
Premise Two: There are people, and they have experiences.
Conclusion: Physicalism is incoherent because it claims that there is nothing spooky but there are subjective experiences, and subjective experiences are spooky, so there is a contradiction.

We can fix this mess though.

Kevin's Physicalist "Proof"
Premise One: There is nothing spooky.
Premise Two: There are people, and they have experiences.
Conclusion: There are people and they have experiences, but whatever is going on it is not spooky.

That's perfectly coherent, despite your claims to the contrary. We just eliminate your covert axiom, and we are left with a coherent physicalist position. I'm not saying I know it to be true, but it's perfectly coherent.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If this thing is not completely dead, I have more time today.

OK, where were we? We had agreed that there is a difference between an action and a description of an action, correct? Whether or not we deal with a description of describing or whatever, there is a difference between the action and the description. Can we agree on that? If so, then there are different "perspectives" -- from the outside describing and from the inside (the action itself). Can we get that far?

I am not trying to sneak in subjectivity here, so please stop jumping to conclusions and accusing me of trying to be sneaky. I am trying to work through scenarios and get to the possible meaning of some of these words. And I'm not going after the "Being is Awareness so we are ultimately all God" angle either.

We can start on awareness next if we agree on the above. In my way of thinking about it awareness consists of two basic components -- attention and understanding of the object of attention. A traffic camera is not aware because it understands nothing, it only attends. Just like subject is not viewpoint, but awareness from a viewpoint, awareness is not attention but attention with understanding. Does that make sense? Or have I left anything out?

And, perhaps, understanding is not the best term, since we can be aware but not fully understand that of which we are aware. There must be some putting the thing attended into some framework, however, I think, to speak of awareness proper.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you're a physicalist, everything is supposed to be physical. Unfortunately this leads to the elimination of minds.

So I lied.

Are you sure about this? You've put the mind in the Neutral, if I recall correctly. A physicalist could just declare the Neutral to be the physical and he would have minds. What would be missing is whatever you've put in Being.

It sure would be helpful if you would post your proof again, using whatever definitions you/we decided upon the last time. I can't even remember them.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Your proof rested on your (false) claim that we had agreed that we could not define "physical" to refer to all P1s and all P2s.

Wrong, you didn't understand the proof. You can define physical to refer to both. That just leads to a contradiction somewhere else.

Kevin, I really cannot be bothered to listen to you whine on about how I nothing was demonstrated when you understand neither my position nor your own.

I have asked you several times to provide some definitions so I can demonstrate the proof to you. You can't do it. But you DO keep making pronouncements.

You *SOUND* intelligent, Kevin. But there's never any real content. Just unfounded uninformed claims.

Kevin's Physicalist "Proof"
Premise One: There is nothing spooky.
Premise Two: There are people, and they have experiences.
Conclusion: There are people and they have experiences, but whatever is going on it is not spooky.

That's perfectly coherent, despite your claims to the contrary.

This is just great Kevin. Stick to the Mr Men books.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If this thing is not completely dead, I have more time today.

OK, where were we? We had agreed that there is a difference between an action and a description of an action, correct?

Yeah, one of them is just a description.

Whether or not we deal with a description of describing or whatever, there is a difference between the action and the description. Can we agree on that? If so, then there are different "perspectives" -- from the outside describing and from the inside (the action itself). Can we get that far?

I'm struggling to know what this is really supposed to mean, actually. I sort of see what your saying, but I'm concerned about the claim that "describing" something makes you outside it instead of inside it.

I am not trying to sneak in subjectivity here, so please stop jumping to conclusions and accusing me of trying to be sneaky. I am trying to work through scenarios and get to the possible meaning of some of these words.

We can start on awareness next if we agree on the above. In my way of thinking about it awareness consists of two basic components -- attention and understanding of the object of attention. A traffic camera is not aware because it understands nothing, it only attends. Just like subject is not viewpoint, but awareness from a viewpoint, awareness is not attention but attention with understanding. Does that make sense? Or have I left anything out?

You've left out subjectivity.

Subjectivity is not the combination of attention and understanding. For a start, the understanding isn't needed. My cat understands little, but I reckon he's concious. So that just leaves attention, and as you said - the traffic camera has this.

And, perhaps, understanding is not the best term, since we can be aware but not fully understand that of which we are aware. There must be some putting the thing attended into some framework, however, I think, to speak of awareness proper.

I think you are saying something different about consciousness here. I think you are talking about how we build raw sensations into a coherent world-picture. This is important, but it isn't subjectivity - or awareness as you are using it.

Geoff