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.
Then why did you say that there's no widely accepted theory which includes the qualitative whatevers you think need to be included to make all of this work. What's changed in the last few hours?
Nothing has changed. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. There are interesting efforts:
I've already mentioned Penrose & Hameroff, Henry Stapp, and Koch & Crick. I could add:
Gregg Rosenberg has an interesting way to re-conceive of causation that allows us to understand qualia in causal terms.
Alfred North Whitehead's "actual entities" have both subjective and objective aspects. There are numerous variations inspired by Whitehead's approach, roughly falling under the umbrella term "process philosophy."
David Chalmers takes an information-theory approach, similar to Koch & Crick.
And so on.
I would not say that any of these folks has a widely accepted theory that solves the hard problem, but they (and others) have greatly influenced my thinking on the topic. They recognize the same fundamental problems that I do.
Quote:
But seriously, will me unloading a page worth of vaguely related Dennett or Churchland quotes make you change your mind? If no, why bother with dumping a bunch more mysticism on top of the stuff already presented here? I know some people are dualists, but that has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
I've read a lot of Dennett and the Churchlands (nearly all of their books, and some articles). We could discuss them in some depth, if you'd like to. But you're right, I have not been convinced by them. I offered the quotes specifically in response to your claim that "no one who actually has expertise in the field takes the idea seriously." I could have simply said "That's not true" but then I was afraid you'd just say that it was an unsupported statement, so I offered the quotes as support. BTW, I only picked quotes from scientists because I thought you didn't give a flyin' hoot about what any philosophers had to say on the subject. Of course that's not quite true because Dennett and Paul and Patricia Churchland are all philosophers.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-13-2015 at 03:46 PM..
And lots of equally good (as in logically possible) reasons to believe that the explanation will be found through normal scientific investigation.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "normal". I consider radical new theories and paradigm shifts to be an important part of science and, in some sense even "normal" insofar as it just seems to be the way science works.
Quote:
I'll remind readers of the actual real life history of dualism, vitalism and other such attempts to claim that science is missing something. They've been relegated to the dustbin of history - valiant but wrong attempts by pre-scientific fields to try to explain the natural world.
But then there are also cases where science really was missing something. Physics before Einstein was missing quit a bit. So was biology before Darwin, and so on. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: I accept the promissory note that science will solve the hard problem; I just don't accept the promissory note that says that reductive materialism, as currently conceived will solve the hard problem. My prediction is that science will solve the problem when some genius figures out how to "reverse engineer", so to speak, qualitative experience so that the origins of subjective/qualitative phenomena can be seen in the fundamentals of physical science.
Quote:
At best it seems a bit strange to pretend that science doesn't have a good track record of figuring these things out, even when philosophers are really, really sure that they couldn't.
Science has a great track record in the long run, partly because we've had great scientists who didn't let their creativity get boxed in by the current thinking of their day.
You and I are in agreement on this. I believe that an acceptable explanation can and will be found by science. I just add the idea that there are extremely good reasons to believe that the explanation will turn to be an alternative to reductive materialism. (I've not been able to prove conclusively to you folks that materialism can't do the job - I have not been able to convince you that the promissory note of materialism is a bad investment - but, the reasons seem fairly clear to me.)
But that is their default and they will not easily give it up. It anchors their sense of reality from the specter of a God. At least they know you are on their side with respect to God . . . but they seem unable to grasp the issues that make materialism a bad bet instead of the default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thanks. You have at least persuaded me that I should be open to such a possibility. I am watching with interest. As to the promissory note, it is not so much an investment as not dumping the shares -in fact the whole monetoay system - on the claim that it will probably turn out to be worthless. At the moment, though we change from gold to Nickel and then plastic, it is the best and in fact the only validated system we have.
That's why, though I am anticipating the range of Isms in whatever the explanation turns out to be, mainly because of your explanations, Mystic's past efforts to unseat the materialist default and replace it with the Cosmic consciousness did not stand up. I know that isn't your argument, but it is his, and I am always keeping a watching brief on it.
You are wrong about the Cosmic Consciousness not standing up . . . but you are too biased and close-minded to see it, Arq. Gaylen is looking to find something that establishes that consciousness as manifested in an experience of "being" is indeed a fundamental aspect of our entire reality. That is hardly that different from saying that consciousness is the unified field that establishes our reality. The latter would have to be God. You don't like my view despite its plausibility and explanatory power using extant science. You prefer your view and its promissory note despite its untenable position relative to extant science in the hope that a future science will validate it somehow. Our positions are on equal footing seeking future validation, Arq. Yours has no superiority to mine whatsoever.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 03-13-2015 at 06:24 PM..
But that is their default and they will not easily give it up. It anchors their sense of reality from the specter of a God. At least they know you are on their side with respect to God . . . but they seem unable to grasp the issues that make materialism a bad bet instead of the default.You are wrong about the Cosmic Consciousness not standing up . . . but you are too biased and close-minded to see it, Arq. Gaylen is looking to find something that establishes that consciousness as manifested in an experience of "being" is indeed a fundamental aspect of our entire reality. That is hardly that different from saying that consciousness is the unified field that establishes our reality. The latter would have to be God. You don't like my view despite its plausibility and explanatory power using extant science. You prefer your view and its promissory note despite its untenable position relative to extant science in the hope that a future science will validate it somehow. Our positions are on equal footing seeking future validation, Arq. Yours has no superiority to mine whatsoever.
Just keep telling yourself that, old son. If you do not listen to let alone accept my arguments, that is your affair. In the end it does not matter to me what you think.
Sorry mate, don't mean to sound snappy. In the end, you think this, and I think that and that's an end to it. I have tried to explain the basis of my views and if you don't see it, let alone buy it, that's your affair, too.
If you think I am missing something and can't possibly understand then that's what what you think, too. The fact is that this discussion was over long ago and if the bods out there aren't learning anything, there's no point in beating it to death.
The relevance to the thread is Mystics and atheists failing to understand each other. I think they can if they agree to differ on how this very real experience is to be interpreted.
The Mystic will talk in terms of the Ineffable, the Not -This/Not that or the Unknowable reality and the skeptical atheist in terms of the human mind, the parietal lobes and neurons. The difference in language is a difference in the basis of thinking: faith in how the experience feels and an agnostic doubt about it as we do have and should - about anything for which science has not provided an answer, because we know how prone humans are to misinterpretation, misperception and superstition. And I will certainly not mention that we do rather like the mystical ideas and theories and it is rather the mystical side that doesn't like ours, and can get annoyed, weepy or yelling in block capitals when we won't accept what they claim just because they believe it.
I won't labour the back -to front Theistthink of applying skepticism about imperfect, fallible human reasoning applied to science; a method designed to eliminate those imperfections, and of placing unquestioning reliance in human feelings - the very thing that is so prone to misinterpretation, nor will I labour the argument that science has provided the only sureties we have. Nor will I trouble to mention my own synthesis (not as well worked out as yours) as to why the Mystical Experience is not to be taken as definite evidence of Something More than the biological working of the human mind (give or take some Hard Questions about its workings) and will not feel the need to repeat that this is not an 'agree to differ' because logically and on the basis of the 'sureties' that science has provided we have the default and it is up to the other side to provide valid evidence that their 'Take' on the experience is right.
As we said in the Deep South, it's time to fish or cut bait.
I cut bait long ago, and I don't want to be impolite to my mate Mystic or his ingenious and intriguing Synthesis, but for me and for others, it was washed up long ago and we are not buying. (1)
The only reason I find myself getting involved is that Mystic can be relied on to regularly pop up peddling his theories as unquestionable fact, and just to stay silent..is too much like tacit assent.
(1) (you will come to realize that I was cursed as a babe by the fairy Foopnote because she wasn't invited to the Christening). I spent a long time on it because it touched on a lot of Woo areas where the agnostic aspect of atheism (consciousness, OOB's oh yes, First cause and the ID argument) is engaged, because if there is a god, that is where it will be found and so I really tried to understand this. Gaylenwoof helped immensely and Mystic did reveal some significant explanations and when I say I have sussed it, largely that is what I think I have done, and others who take the same process of study come to the same conclusion
In the end, you think this, and I think that and that's an end to it.
In my case, as a philosopher and as someone who is fascinated by psychology, I am deeply intrigued by the incredible disconnect itself. I am fascinated - perhaps to the point of obsession - with trying to really understand how anyone can fail to see something that, to me, seems so self-evidently obvious that I can't even find a way to explain it. (It's like asking me to explain why the logical law of contradiction is necessary for logical thinking. How do you defend it if someone denies it?) I sincerely worry that I might be the one who is somehow suffering from some sort of conceptual blindspot. I don't really believe this is possible, but the problem is that if I truly had such a blindspot of the sort that I fear, then it would probably seem to me to be just as impossible as it seems to me! Thus I am driven to fully "grok" the other point of view. If I can somehow get into a mental state where I can really see how you guys think that objective/quantitative models could - in principle - explain subjective/qualitative phenomena without any sort of brute fact mapping between the subjective and objective, then I could study the two approaches and see exactly how the conceptual disconnect happens. And I would either realize that I'm goofed up, or else I could see more clearly how to convince you guys that you are goofed up. This is a deliciously deep puzzle for me, and I just can't seem to walk away from it.
The problem with mystics trying to talk to atheists
Hi Victorianpunk,
I just came across this interesting topic, read a couple of posts.
The 'issue', in my opinion, is in the question itself.I see your sincerity or innocence in just
wanting to mention or talk with others
...but, once I find out the person is an atheist and becomes bothered...
I may say , "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know you were an atheist, I'll drop it...
but, just to clarify... I abhor religions and their horrible teachings of
a punishing jealous God in the Sky. I experience a Divine Presence that is nothing but love...
and I can not prove thru science It exists...so sorry I'll knock it off...hey, is that a Gin
or Vodka martini you have...I love gin, but it makes me sneeze?"
In my case, as a philosopher and as someone who is fascinated by psychology, I am deeply intrigued by the incredible disconnect itself. I am fascinated - perhaps to the point of obsession - with trying to really understand how anyone can fail to see something that, to me, seems so self-evidently obvious that I can't even find a way to explain it. (It's like asking me to explain why the logical law of contradiction is necessary for logical thinking. How do you defend it if someone denies it?) I sincerely worry that I might be the one who is somehow suffering from some sort of conceptual blindspot. I don't really believe this is possible, but the problem is that if I truly had such a blindspot of the sort that I fear, then it would probably seem to me to be just as impossible as it seems to me! Thus I am driven to fully "grok" the other point of view. If I can somehow get into a mental state where I can really see how you guys think that objective/quantitative models could - in principle - explain subjective/qualitative phenomena without any sort of brute fact mapping between the subjective and objective, then I could study the two approaches and see exactly how the conceptual disconnect happens. And I would either realize that I'm goofed up, or else I could see more clearly how to convince you guys that you are goofed up. This is a deliciously deep puzzle for me, and I just can't seem to walk away from it.
I greatly appreciate that effort to understand and I also tried to 'Grok' the arguments that seemed to call into question everything we thought we know about the mind and consciousness. In the end I had to admit that I couldn't get it, though (thanks to you) I do get an inkling of the hard question. I am not sure myself what it is that is puzzling you.
I can see this big Q about just what is it that is behind sensation? What is it that causes feeling or the emotion of emotion? I can see how it can seem (if that's case) that mere chemistry cannot account for it, but I wonder. You see, I postulate (as you probably know) that using the evolution theory and indeed the evilooshun theory, particles clumping together (and there was a good you tube lecture on how this was pushed by Thermo 2, which seems to be a motivator for matter combination on a quasi -evolutionary basis) and thus atoms, molecules and (after a lot of stellar activity), heavy elements and biochemicals and (assuming abiogenesis) the Thermo-driven physical formation process has become evolution and the actions and reactions become a survival mechanism.
Are those reactions to pursue grub or avoid becoming it, codified into DNA as the only way that an organism can survive, feelings and perceptions or not? In a very basic way perhaps they are and I can see (I'm trying to get you to Grok my approach to the question) the whole thing like life, instincts, and the evolution of really a motor ganglion that moves muscle but hardly even notices the stars, let alone wonder about them, becomes larger, as in raptors, porpoises and dogs where social complexity has evolved (emergence in action -explained as well as observed) and the instinctive reactions become so easily sensation; like and dislike and is a vague way I can 'see' how what we think of as a sensation/experience/qualia is just the operation of this long process of increasing complexity, driven by evolution/survival. Which is why -and I could be wrong - I begin to think that we have no instinct that isn't rooted in a survival mechanism (war, kingship, even religion) and the feelings and experience is just an aggregate of a very complex chemical (to put it basically) process and the feeling that there must be something More (dualism, never mind a cosmic intelligence) is perhaps a human delusion, like regarding Love as some kind of entity existing apart from instinctive human thinking.
I'm not saying this is right or even trying to explain my 'Synthesis' to you, but perhaps getting over why I don't see the Hard Question as a challenge to materialism and why I fully expect the promissory note to be honoured in time,.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-15-2015 at 11:43 AM..
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.
Just keep telling yourself that, old son. If you do not listen to let alone accept my arguments, that is your affair. In the end it does not matter to me what you think. 
that this is not an 'agree to differ' because logically and on the basis of the 'sureties' that science has provided we have the default and it is up to the other side to provide valid evidence that their 'Take' on the experience is right.
