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.
Does anyone peer -review this stuff or do they just put it in the library?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
It's a dissertation for a PhD in philosophy.
As you know, peer review doesn't guarantee excellence, nor does it fully vaccinate an article from all possibility of blatant errors, but in the case of these two articles, I would suggest thinking seriously about what, exactly, you think is wrong with them. I have not yet carefully read them, but based on my quick perusal of the abstracts and conclusions, I think they are worth engaging. (Perhaps this would be best done in a new thread?)
For my part, I can already tell that the authors of the PMC article do not really seem to understand the philosophical implications of self-organization (but this doesn't necessarily derail their conclusions). Life - insofar as the behaviors of living organisms is concerned - could, in principle, be materialistically "explained" and I think we probably will someday have a theory allowing us to model one or more possible paths of biogenesis in detail. As many of you know, however, I am highly confident that the qualitative feel of subjective experience cannot, even in principle, have a fully mechanistic/materialistic "3rd-person-based" explanation.
I'm not convinced that conscious intelligence has to play a fundamental role (I'd say that life does not have to be "designed"), but 1st-person qualitative aspects (or "proto-qualitative" aspects) will eventually have to be recognized as fundamental (i.e., incorporated into the rock-bottom level of explanation - that which accounts for everything else but which, itself, is not "explainable" in terms of anything temporally or logically prior). To put it another way, not all aspects of the "soft" sciences will end up being fully reducible to the 3rd-person-definable fields currently understood in physics.
MPhD's mystical experience has convinced him that intelligence is fundamental, but I see this as his interpretation of his experience, and I'm not convinced that his interpretation is the best one. To put it another way: Even if his experience was, indeed, an experience of "the mind of God" in some deep sense, there are still layers of personal interpretation between the experience itself, and his cognitive understanding of the experience.
In any case, I think that intelligence itself is always evolved (with the help of self-organizing principles), and is thus unlikely to be truly fundamental.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-03-2018 at 08:48 AM..
As you know, peer review doesn't guarantee excellence, nor does it fully vaccinate an article from all possibility of blatant errors, but in the case of these two articles, I would suggest thinking seriously about what, exactly, you think is wrong with them. I have not yet carefully read them, but based on my quick perusal of the abstracts and conclusions, I think they are worth engaging. (Perhaps this would be best done in a new thread?)
For my part, I can already tell that the authors of the PMC article do not really seem to understand the philosophical implications of self-organization (but this doesn't necessarily derail their conclusions). Life - insofar as the behaviors of living organisms is concerned - could, in principle, be materialistically "explained" and I think we probably will someday have a theory allowing us to model one or more possible paths of biogenesis in detail. As many of you know, however, I am highly confident that the qualitative feel of subjective experience cannot, even in principle, have a fully mechanistic/materialistic "3rd-person-based" explanation.
I'm not convinced that conscious intelligencehas to play a fundamental role (I'd say that life does not have to be "designed"), but 1st-person qualitative aspects (or "proto-qualitative" aspects) will eventually have to be recognized as fundamental (i.e., incorporated into the rock-bottom level of explanation - that which accounts for everything else but which, itself, is not "explainable" in terms of anything temporally or logically prior). To put it another way, not all aspects of the "soft" sciences will end up being fully reducible to the 3rd-person-definable fields currently understood in physics.
MPhD's mystical experience has convinced him that intelligence is fundamental, but I see this as his interpretation of his experience, and I'm not convinced that his interpretation is the best one. To put it another way: Even if his experience was, indeed, an experience of "the mind of God" in some deep sense, there are still layers of personal interpretation between the experience itself, and his cognitive understanding of the experience.
In any case, I think that intelligence itself is always evolved (with the help of self-organizing principles), and is thus unlikely to be truly fundamental.
I think starting a new thread to discuss is an excellent idea and I would be happy to participate. The many voices and views we've seen on this thread, plus others, would surely make it an engaging, fruitful, interesting, discussion and conversation.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-03-2018 at 10:55 AM..
As you know, peer review doesn't guarantee excellence, nor does it fully vaccinate an article from all possibility of blatant errors, but in the case of these two articles, I would suggest thinking seriously about what, exactly, you think is wrong with them. I have not yet carefully read them, but based on my quick perusal of the abstracts and conclusions, I think they are worth engaging. (Perhaps this would be best done in a new thread?)
For my part, I can already tell that the authors of the PMC article do not really seem to understand the philosophical implications of self-organization (but this doesn't necessarily derail their conclusions). Life - insofar as the behaviors of living organisms is concerned - could, in principle, be materialistically "explained" and I think we probably will someday have a theory allowing us to model one or more possible paths of biogenesis in detail. As many of you know, however, I am highly confident that the qualitative feel of subjective experience cannot, even in principle, have a fully mechanistic/materialistic "3rd-person-based" explanation.
I'm not convinced that conscious intelligence has to play a fundamental role (I'd say that life does not have to be "designed"), but 1st-person qualitative aspects (or "proto-qualitative" aspects) will eventually have to be recognized as fundamental (i.e., incorporated into the rock-bottom level of explanation - that which accounts for everything else but which, itself, is not "explainable" in terms of anything temporally or logically prior). To put it another way, not all aspects of the "soft" sciences will end up being fully reducible to the 3rd-person-definable fields currently understood in physics.
MPhD's mystical experience has convinced him that intelligence is fundamental, but I see this as his interpretation of his experience, and I'm not convinced that his interpretation is the best one. To put it another way: Even if his experience was, indeed, an experience of "the mind of God" in some deep sense, there are still layers of personal interpretation between the experience itself, and his cognitive understanding of the experience.
In any case, I think that intelligence itself is always evolved (with the help of self-organizing principles), and is thus unlikely to be truly fundamental.
Philosophy? Not some kind of medical research? Or the effect of sounds on the brain? Philosophy? I may be overly suspicious, but I wonder whether "Philosophy" is a way of slipping all sorts of whacky speculations under the radar of verification. You know how it works - a theoretical mechanism which must be true if you can't disprove it.
I may be overly suspicious, but I wonder whether "Philosophy" is a way of slipping all sorts of whacky speculations under the radar of verification.
Some philosophers are "verificationists" but, in general, most believe that knowledge is not strictly limited to what can be empirically verified, or to what can be "objectively" verified by current science. Phenomenology, for example, requires empirical (in the form of intersubjective or "1st-person-plural") verification, but it recognizes that all knowledge is ultimately grounded in subjective experience and thus, descriptions of experience cannot be reduced to 3rd-person concepts.
But, really, I think a more important discussion involves the concept of "mechanism". Does every explanation need to be mechanistic? (Where "mechanism" = reducible to algorithmic/deterministic/law-like mathematical models.) I'm fairly certain that we will never have a fully mechanistic explanation of subjective/qualitative experience. We might someday identify the "neural correlates" of experiences, but the question of why those neural activities "feel like that" will not be answered via deeper mechanism. The buck stops at brute-fact qualitative potentials and relations. This is the "miracle" aspect of Existence. MPhD and others want to insist that the miracle is an intelligent God, and they could be right. But I remain highly skeptical of the "intelligent" part and, in any case, I'm pretty sure that life is not "intelligent design." I think that "qualitative naturalism" is an option. On this model, intelligence evolves. It is not fundamental.
Quote:
You know how it works - a theoretical mechanism which must be true if you can't disprove it.
I think I'm safe in saying that you will never find a peer-reviewed philosopher who believes that.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-03-2018 at 05:46 PM..
Philosophy? Not some kind of medical research? Or the effect of sounds on the brain? Philosophy? I may be overly suspicious, but I wonder whether "Philosophy" is a way of slipping all sorts of whacky speculations under the radar of verification. You know how it works - a theoretical mechanism which must be true if you can't disprove it.
The two articles on consciousness (one on Vedanta, one on Chinese) were provided to show that cultures and civilizations across the globe and across the centuries have had explanations for consciousness. And that some of those explanations from thousands of years ago are now being described in scientific terms.
See post #4579 and #4580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Consciousness is understood and has been for thousands of years in every culture and civilization. A life force flows through all life, gives rise to life and is the source of life. What lags behind is cumbersome and crude "technology" that drags and crawls and stumbles towards what masters and sages and wise ones have known and understood and shown us all along.
Philosophy? Not some kind of medical research? Or the effect of sounds on the brain? Philosophy? I may be overly suspicious, but I wonder whether "Philosophy" is a way of slipping all sorts of whacky speculations under the radar of verification. You know how it works - a theoretical mechanism which must be true if you can't disprove it.
The only problem i have with this is that you think a 'atheist perspective" gets to judge "content".
I don't need a peer review to know that i don't urinate in my front seat. i won't find it anywhere in a book either.
what other group thinks a "statement of belief about god perspective" gets to judge content?
it was provided to show that cultures and civilizations across the globe and across the centuries have had explanations for consciousness. And that some of those explanations from thousands of years ago are now being described in scientific terms.
See post #4579 and #4580
i wouldn't say "understood". its like saying we "understand gravity" because we can use it. we have no idea what it is.
we have no understanding of what consciousness is past, "I smash your brain, it goes away."
The two articles on consciousness (one on Vedanta, one on Chinese) were provided to show that cultures and civilizations across the globe and across the centuries have had explanations for consciousness. And that some of those explanations from thousands of years ago are now being described in scientific terms.
See post #4579 and #4580
Whether the ancient views are "explanations" in the modern scientific sense remains questionable. And whether explanations have to take this scientific form is also debatable. I am inclined to say "no" to both. Some of the ancients probably had some insights via meditative practices that modern science has not yet achieved, but modern science and philosophy have developed insight that the ancients probably never achieved. I easily know some things about the taste of sugar that science will probably never explain, but this doesn't mean that science can't teach me lots of things about the taste that I could have never known without scientific progress.
We might someday create beings who can experience things far beyond anything biologically human minds at the moment can possibly comprehend. I think it is safe to say that the ancients did not posses that sort of knowledge.
i wouldn't say "understood". its like saying we "understand gravity" because we can use it. we have no idea what it is.
we have no understanding of what consciousness is past, "I smash your brain, it goes away."
Speak for yourself.
Others have more understanding than that.
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.
