Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am quite sure I understand what Gaylen is saying . . . but apparently you do not. He has said many times now that the current materialist default is untenable because the measures it is based on do not account for subjectivity. He seeks some way to change that by finding or developing measures that will incorporate subjectivity into the basic physics. But as it stands now the basic physics makes materialism untenable as the default.
And I have said many times that does not mean it has to be wrong - just that we have more to discover.
That old mate is why I am sure that faith has frazzled your brains, and I have to say that I tried to follow Gaylen's original argument (which he appears to have modified) that materialism failed to explain this and that but never would be able to (which is an irrational a position as I have heard) and taking painst to understand why some mind experiment proved that a material/physical explanation had to be not just not explainable, not even never explainable, but false because impossible, I could not swallow it that some very questionable mental scenarios proved anything at all.
Now, looking at Gaylenwoof's post, it seems to be saying that he accepts reality. Reality is not solipsistic (I have my own mind experiment ) it is illusory (or rather our perception of it are limited by our faculties) but it is reliable. Physical processes are known and there is no need for anything but those. Emergence es known (whether you like it or not) and - apart from a few unknowns - there is nothing to make the materialist default turn over, yawn, and go back to sleep, no matter what you may have read into Gaylen's post on the basis of what you believe on faith.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-11-2015 at 07:36 AM..
As for the epistemological humility part - come on. Think about the claims I'm skeptical of here. That reality is created by one person's mind.
This is one example of the types of statements you make that lead me to think that you're still not grasping the central point. You've latched on to the literal meaning of solipsism, but (at least in these types of statements) you completely fail to address the underlying meaning of this logical possibility. It is just a logical possibility - no one I know of is seriously suggesting that solipsism is the correct view of reality - but the logical possibility of solipsism provides insights into our concepts of "knowledge", especially insofar as it relates to our everyday concept of objectivity. In these threads, however, I've mostly referenced radical skepticism as a way to explain what qualia are, and why I don't think that qualia can be explanatorily reduced to the objective terms of current physics (the "explanatory gap" / "hard problem"). As I've said, I recognize that conscious qualia are almost certainly emergent phenomena, but I've also argued that even emergent phenomena need to emerge from some ontological set of concepts that are rich enough to explain the potential for emergence. Without this ontological grounding, "emergence" is just a fancy term for "magically appears". My approach is to account for the emergence of qualia by (very roughly) suggesting that some qualitative or proto-qualitative concepts need to be built in to fundamental physics as aspects of matter/energy. Again the basic idea is to progress beyond the currently recognized objective/quantitative particles/forces/principles of physics in such a way that there is some conceptual room for subjective/qualitative concepts.
Quote:
That somehow a random poster on the internet has discovered a fatal flaw in modern science's approach towards studying reality.
I hope I have not given the impression that the ideas I've been discussing are just my ideas. I would love to be the "artist" here and create something truly novel, but in reality I am more of a "craftsman" - I'm taking ideas that are already discussed in great (great, great) depth by other people, and I'm simply putting my own spin on them (specifically my idea of the "primordial qualitative chaos" is my own spin, but not really a new idea). And, I should add, that my ideas are not just coming from philosophers. I'm drawing heavily from ideas discussed by neuroscientists and physicists as well. I could name dozens if I put my mind to it, but just off the top of my head, I can name a few scientists who take the hard problem seriously and who offer ideas that are roughly consistent with what I'm trying to do (which, again, should be no surprise since I'm getting these ideas from them in the first place). A brief random list, in no particular order: Erwin Schrodinger, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Francis Crick (in his later years), Christof Koch, Douglas Hofstadter, V.S. Ramachandran, David Albert, Stuart Kauffman, Henry Stapp.... I could also add dozens of philosophers, but given your view of philosophers, I don't see much point in that.
Of course I'm not saying that all these folks couldn't be misguided; I'm simply emphasizing that my positions are not just the views of "a random poster on the internet." I'm simply reflecting some substantial lines of thinking within science and philosophy.
Here's part of the problem. Philosophy is the wrong tool to study brain function. Philosophy is great for stuff where everyone is just arguing opinions and tastes, but it fails miserably when trying to figure out how the natural world works.
I think you off track here. I would agree that philosophy can't realistically be the only - or the primary - tool for investigating brain function (or physics, or even the nature of consciousness), but efforts to understand brain function insofar as it relates to qualitative experience have become interdisciplinary. Neuroscience, physics, mathematics, computer science, and philosophers are all playing roles in the collective effort. Philosophy deals with the validity of argument structures, uncovering the logical implications of empirical claims, and, overall, evaluating the credibility of various arguments and theories.
In reality, the division of academia into separate fields is largely an illusion. Scientists put on their philosopher hats when they go about the task of weighing the values of theories and arguments and when they attempt to track down the not-so-obvious logical implications of their theories. Scientists, in general, don't go quite as deep into this stuff as the philosophers of science will go, but they certainly do get into it. In fact, a lot of the "philosophy of science" that exists in the philosophical literature comes from scientists who have some philosophical training (and/or simply have a good knack for philosophical thinking). And, of course, virtually every notable philosopher of science who is not, first and foremost a scientist, has nevertheless had extensive graduate-level training in the science they are dealing with. True, many of these folks are just "armchair" scientists, but the vast majority of them are waling side-by-side, so to speak, with scientists and a lot of their philosophical work is co-authored by scientists.
Philosophy is not "the" tool for studying any science, but it is a critical component of any science, insofar as scientists need to structure arguments to defend their position and track down the hidden implications of the theories they deal with.
I agree. Science is the only reliable method of discovering and validating fact. Philosophy does not and cannot do that (though sometimes it seems to think it can using mind -experiments) but -quite apart from ethics, the logical approach to the data that science needs is from philosophy and philosophers can often ask questions that scientists don't think of.
I merely have reservations on science being told that its preferred defaults are false because of some rather odd mind -experiments, even if they are not being misused by believers to try to discredit materialism in order to try to make "God -claims" look more credible.
I am quite sure I understand what Gaylen is saying . . . but apparently you do not. He has said many times now that the current materialist default is untenable because the measures it is based on do not account for subjectivity. He seeks some way to change that by finding or developing measures that will incorporate subjectivity into the basic physics. But as it stands now the basic physics makes materialism untenable as the default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Maybe "the current materialist default does not account for subjectivity" because this is how it should be.
The problem with that is . . . the source of subjectivity is consciousness. That means what you are using to understand what reality is comprised of is currently not measurable by what you are using to understand what reality is comprised of! Since it is the source of the phenomenon of subjectivity that you are using . . . how can subjectivity be unaccounted for or ruled out as a component of reality?
Philosophy is not "the" tool for studying any science, but it is a critical component of any science, insofar as scientists need to structure arguments to defend their position and track down the hidden implications of the theories they deal with.
Maybe so. Let's look to the evidence. Do you have any figures on the percentage of cites in the average peer reviewed scientific research paper which reference philosophical works? I'm curious how this "critical component" plays out in practice. My guess is that it isn't nearly as critical here in reality as it is in the narrative certain fans of philosophy have created for themselves.
This is one example of the types of statements you make that lead me to think that you're still not grasping the central point. You've latched on to the literal meaning of solipsism, but (at least in these types of statements) you completely fail to address the underlying meaning of this logical possibility.
Again, this just sounds like complaining that I don't find it as earth-shatteringly important as you do. Yeah, yeah, humans aren't prefect omniscient data recorders. I don't need to pretend that I'm a shadow in another person's dream to realize that I can't always remember phone numbers. No shock there. So now I've addressed the underlying meaning and we can move on to things which aren't an epistemological dead end.
Quote:
I've also argued that even emergent phenomena need to emerge from some ontological set of concepts that are rich enough to explain the potential for emergence. Without this ontological grounding, "emergence" is just a fancy term for "magically appears".
Considering you've been unable to use this approach to independently discover things which are undoubtedly emergent behavior of normal matter, I'm not really impressed by the fact that you can't do it here for a more complex case. It seems to be an area where you've invented a requirement out of thin air rather than a case of applying a well-tested method to learning about reality.
Quote:
My approach is to account for the emergence of qualia by (very roughly) suggesting that some qualitative or proto-qualitative concepts need to be built in to fundamental physics as aspects of matter/energy.
Can you give some examples of say, proto-digestive concepts that are built into fundamental physics so we can at least see what the gaps might look like for cases of other bodily functions?
The problem with that is . . . the source of subjectivity is consciousness. That means what you are using to understand what reality is comprised of is currently not measurable by what you are using to understand what reality is comprised of!
Note the unstated assumption here - that what we can measure of reality can't generate consciousness. Not surprisingly, that's also the conclusion that the argument is trying to imply.
Can you give some examples of say, proto-digestive concepts that are built into fundamental physics so we can at least see what the gaps might look like for cases of other bodily functions?
I tried this before, and you weren't satisfied with the answer, but I'll give it another shot.
Digestion is essentially the breaking-down and re-configuring of organic molecules with the net release of chemical energy (which is then used for metabolism). There are emergent patterns of chemical activity, but emergent patterns of activity are not, in principle, a fundamental mystery. The key explanatory concepts are:
The making and breaking of atomic bonds - mostly explained by electromagnetic force equations and related laws of electricity, thermodynamics, etc.
The motions of atoms (which, in turn, are reducible to the motions of subatomic particles) - mostly explained by the previously mentioned bonding, as well as equations involving mass and geometric properties (shapes/arrangements of atoms/molecules).
If you wanted to get an absolutely perfect reduction with precision down to umpteen decimal places, you'd have to bring in the other 3 fundamental forces of physics, but realistically I don't think that any human being will ever reduce digestion to those levels of precision and completeness. That's not what scientists do, and that's not what philosophers of science expect scientists to do. So if this is what you are asking me to do, then forget it. It ain't happening.
The principles of dynamical systems (aka systems "far from equilibrium", aka "self-organizing systems", etc.) will also be essential, since this will account for the higher-level emergent patterns.
I'm just wingin' this, so I've probably forgotten a few key concepts, but the main point is this: So far as we are aware, there is nothing in the concept of digestion that requires any explanatory tools that can't be provided by physics (so long as your physics has access to the principles of dynamical systems, various theorems of mathematics, and logic). BTW, this last point is important, so just to emphasize: When I say "reducible to physics" I'm not saying "reducible to just the 4 known forces of physics and the zoo of known elementary particles. Physics is fundamentally mathematical, so the theorems of math and the laws of logic (possibly including "quantum logic") are essential to any reductive explanation - which is how the principles of self-organization come into play.
Generally speaking, the test for whether you have a successful reductive explanation is whether or not you can demonstrate a successful mathematical model (and/or a cellular automata or network). I might also add that "information theory" is lately starting to play a role. I can't think of a single person who looks at the process of digestion and complains about any fundamental mysteries that block, in principle, a compete reduction to physics. We don't have every detail of every mechanism down to the quantum level, but no one expects that.
(A small digression: A hint of mystery could seep into the picture, since the stomach has its own nervous system - sometimes called our "second brain" and some have suggested that the common phrase "gut instincts" may be more literally true than we typically assume. If the web of stomach neurons do, indeed, contribute to sentient experience - as I suspect they do - then digestion could, conceivably, become entangled with the hard problem.)
Just looking at the behavioral aspects of physical systems, there is no fundamental explanatory gap, so far as we know at the moment. The fundamental problems arise only why you try to account for the qualitative feelings of physical activity. Why should these complicated patterns of motion "feel like" anything?
Bottom line: In the case of digestion, the "proto-digestion" elements of physics are simply the laws and fundamental entities of physics, combined with principles of self-organization, etc. Digestion, in terms of reductive explanation, is just patterns of atomic activity, and to model patterns of activity, all you need are elements and rules for explaining the evolution of physical states for these elements. The elements and rules give rise to higher-level patterns, and that's what digestion is - higher-level patterns of atomic activity. But if/when any sort of feelings come into the picture, the reduction fails (for now).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) it is illusory (or rather our perception of it are limited by our faculties) but it is reliable. Physical processes are known and there is no need for anything but those. Emergence es known (whether you like it or not) and - apart from a few unknowns - there is nothing to make the materialist default turn over, yawn, and go back to sleep, no matter what you may have read into Gaylen's post on the basis of what you believe on faith.
