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 will confess to finding some (though by no means all or necessarily most) of philosophy almost reveling in denseness and obtuseness and self-referential navel-gazing and mental masturbation
You don't say?
From the intro to The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics :
Quote:
It is not an accident that none of the included essays attempts to say what metaphysics is, to describe the methods for doing it and the rules or criteria for assessing the success of a metaphysical theory. For all such metaphilosophical attempts have failed miserably. But the history of metaphysics, as well as the essays in this volume, shows that one can successfully engage in the metaphysical language-game even though one cannot articulate the rules of the game in virtue of which we can keep score and thus determine who wins and who loses.
Pretty shocking admission from a proponent to make ... and he apparently doesn't register any irony in it at all. He goes on, too:
Quote:
This demand for a cognitive discipline to have a decision procedure for determining who is right smacks of scientism in which the methods employed by the sciences, as well as the way in which they use concepts, are taken to be legislative for all contexts and disciplines, a discipline’s failure to measure up to these scientific standards showing that it is bogus.
I am still at a loss for any epistemology that has a proven track record of tending to lead towards truth other than the scientific method. This recognition, in and of itself, isn't "scientism". Scientism is the reductionist fantasy that science can actually perform outside its scope, to provide not just methods, but ethical and moral guidance and the like. It is usually promulgated by people who seem not to have even a Philosophy 101 grasp of things.
I don't consider philosophy useless; mathematics is a branch of philosophy, after all, based as it is on unproven axioms, BUT it has a track record of having predictive and explanatory power that greatly facilitates scientific inquiry. It is not as if NOTHING in philosophy or metaphysics can ever inform real world explorations, it is just that it can't do so by itself. Either there has to be a way to accurately judge the truth of its claims (not just the "truthiness") or it has to prove itself explanatory and predictive even if we don't fully understand or can't fully vet the methods without relying on axiomatic truth -- as has happened with mathematics.
So any metaphysical principle either needs to be testable in some credible way, if only by making predictions that come true. Much of metaphysics however simply makes assertions that are not provable, and/or, are rather like holy books -- they are vague enough that, as Gaylen points out, they COULD be used to "explain" aspects of reality as long as you don't dig too deep. The mere fact that some of these thought-systems "fit" from some perspectives with observations that are also explained by science, doesn't make them trustworthy or proven.
For the record, I am willing to acknowledge, particularly in light of QM, the possibility that we are cosmic sock puppets, individualized expressions of some form of universal mind or consciousness, or that we are all connected in some other way. But I need a means to properly test the theory if I am actually going to see a reason to believe it. Years of mental discipline to get myself into an altered mental state that makes this assertion seem more likely does not count as a proper test of the theory, given what we already know about the unreliability of subjective personal experience as a truth-attractor. And that's being charitable.
In most cases, metaphysical ideas are assumptions that play some role in explanations. As a branch of analytic philosophy, the goal of most metaphysical arguments is not so much to "explain" reality, as such, but to identify the metaphysical assumption that underlie various worldviews, then critically examine these assumptions in the light of empirical evidence and/or logical structure. Generally, of course, writers will have their own biases - either conscious or unconscious - that guides their analysis, so someone else will later have to come along to examine those. This is a sort of "free for all" game in which there is no ultimate consensus about the rules, and no consensus on who are the winners or losers. It is essentially a form of art judged by standards of "logical beauty" or "mathematical elegance" etc.
Of course, in addition to exposing/examining metaphysical assumptions, there is generally an explicit attempt to defend a particular metaphysical idea, and this idea will generally be thought of as an explanation of something. In this thread my focus in on exposing/examining/evaluating the metaphysical assumptions underlying materialism insofar as the term 'materialism' is most generally understood. As I see it, materialism and God are in a similar boat. They are both metaphysical assumptions that keep retreating into smaller and smaller "gaps" as science progresses. "Materialism in the gaps" is not so commonly understood or acknowledged as "God in the gaps" but the same basic dynamics are at work. Materialism has been reformulated in various ways over the centuries, but the most recent and most revolutionary reformulation has been since the advent of QM. The everyday "folk" concept of materialism has been thrown out the window, but there is no scientific or philosophical consensus on what to replace it with. The replacement could (and probably will) still be called "materialism," just because it is still scientific, but I'm not sure how far it is practical to stretch that term. My preference is to simply say that science is not limited to materialistic metaphysics.
At the moment, the notion of a "multiverse" seems to be more metaphysics than physics. If it is true, then the concept of a multiverse in conjunction with some anthropic reasoning could "explain" the astronomically unlikely fact that we exist. In an infinite multiverse where every mathematically plausible configuration of natural laws is manifest in some universe or another, then it makes perfect sense that we find ourselves within a universe in which complex physical systems can emerge. The odds against our existence seem to be astronomical, but given the backdrop of infinity, any probability other than zero is a virtual certainty in some universe or another. You may not like the explanation, and it may not be the best explanation, but it is an explanation, of sorts.
One of my attempts to explain consciousness is centered upon the idea that qualia are physical processes, and thus they are causally relevant processes. Since we currently have no satisfactory widespread consensus on how qualia can be physical (or even what exactly it means to say that qualia are "physical"), my proposal is more metaphysics than physics. But if my proposal is correct, then it seems to be testable in principle. As I am using the term "physical," if X is "physical" then X is something that does, or could, make a difference in the evolution of what we experience as the "objective world" where "objective" is understood roughly in line with Bohr's concept of more or less "permanent marks" that can be measured by more than one observer. In other words, qualia should leave "permanent marks" on the physical (or, at least, "inter-subjective") world, so in principle there eventually ought to be some way for physicists to measure these marks. Loosely speaking, my suggestion has been that these "marks" can, in principle, be found in the dynamics of living brain tissue. Since current theories of physics don't make any distinction between living nervous systems and inanimate matter, my prediction is that at least one revolution in fundamental physics is still needed in order to explain consciousness. The new theory will incorporate current QM insofar as it explains inanimate matter, but it will also predict the physical influences of qualia as they manifest in nervous tissue. My favor approach at the moment is "integrated information theory" combined with a few other ideas, as I've discussed in my threads in the philosophy forum.
Saying that qualia are physical is one way of theoretically building the possibility of qualia into the fundamental fabric of Reality. This is something that current physical theories don't do, and I am speculating that a major hang-up is the (mostly unconscious) influence of "folk" materialism.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-13-2016 at 09:17 AM..
This is really my biggest problem with wanting to reject naturalism in favor of a random non-materialist idea of the week. It isn't so much that non-naturalism helps anything...
Just to be clear: I am not rejecting naturalism. My overarching goal is to find a naturalistic explanation. I'm just not convinced that naturalism has to be limited to materialism - although it depends on what you mean by "materialism." If "materialism" simply means "testable in principle" then I would happily identify myself as a true-blue materialist, and all of my rantings and ravings can be understood as promoting materialism. I'm fine with that, but I'm fairly sure that, linguistically, the concept of materialism most commonly involves an ontological commitment to a lot of determinate properties of objects that are in some deep sense independent of subjective observations. This is a way in which the gap into which materialism must fit has narrowed, whether most people realize it, or not. As I said, Bohr preserved the walls of this gap by re-conceptualizing "objectivity" in holistic terms. You can still call this materialism, but I'm trying to emphasize just how weird this sort of materialism has to be. Prior to QM, people would not have recognized this sort of holism as "materialism" at all. They would have said it is just "woo-woo metaphysics" so to speak.
You'll just have to explain how the universe existed for ~10 billion years without any evidence of anything having a qualitative experience.
Excellent question! The key thing to realize is that not all of the past is set in stone. We commonly think of the future as indeterminate, but if I am right, a great deal of the past is indeterminate as well. Some of the past is fixed/determinate (i.e., Bohr's "marks" that can be intersubjectively measured), but a great deal of the past is only becoming determinate now, and/or will only become determinate in the future. Prior to becoming determinate, Reality is essentially a superposition of possibilities. The possibilities that compose this superposition are real, even though they are not actualized. The reality of these possibilities is one of the ontological foundations serving as the "conditions for the possibility of objectivity" where "objective" is understood as measureable marks on Reality (actualizations). This is what makes science possible. The present does not determine the past, but it does influence the process of determination of the past to some extent. We can't change the past insofar as the past is determined, but we can influence the "present process-of-determining" the past insofar as the past is indeterminate. This is what a "measurement" in physics essentially is. The creation of an apparatus to measure, say, a property of a photon that is just now arriving on Earth from the Andromeda galaxy influences the "history" of the photon going back 2.5 million years. There was no "fact of the matter" about this property until the measurement was made, there was no fixed path traveled by the photon, etc.. The probabilities were real - and in this sense "objective" - but there was no objective determinate actuality of the property until it was measured. In other words, 2.5 million years worth of the universe's history just became determinate in the present moment of measurement.
What I'm suggesting is that qualitative experiences "solidify" the past, which is to say, qualitative experiences are the naturalistic mechanisms by which Reality (in for the form of infinite superpositions of possibilities) becomes determinate and thus "objective." We can't change what is already determinate, and we can't simply make the indeterminate past be whatever we want it to be, but whether we like it or not, we seem to be the mechanisms by which Reality evolves from indeterminate to determinate. (Or, at least, we are a component of this mechanism.) What's still missing is a credible theory explaining our nature as the mechanisms of actuality-making. Mere wishing/believing don't (or, at least, don't always) determine reality, so what exactly does?
A related mind-boggling perplexity is this: If qualitative experience is the mechanism for actualizing physical states, then how did the process of actualization get started in the first place? Why didn't Reality just stay in superposition forever? What is the "seed crystal" for the process of actualization? Perhaps a random quantum fluctuation could explain it, but I'm more inclined to think that there was no "first actualizer." Our particular universe may have had some sort of beginning, but the multiverse presumably had no beginning so, from the multiversal perspective, there was never a time before qualitative experience. This, of course, implies that qualitative experience in one universe can somehow influence (play the role of "seed crystal"?) in other universes. This would have to be part of the new umbrella theory that covers current QM and the physical nature of qualia. If I'm right about the "One Self" concept, this could provide some clue.
I know that last paragraph may sound like "God talk" and, perhaps that is how people will want to interpret it. I don't care either way. As an agnostic on liberal conceptions of God, I have no dog in that fight. But, for what it's worth, I doubt there is any "Intelligent Creator" in this picture. It does not violate naturalism to suggest that the natural universe (or multiverse) had no beginning, and it does not violate naturalism to suggest that qualitative experience could be a mechanism for actualizing determinate properties out of a superposition of possibilities. Nor does the concept of "One Self" violate naturalism - once it is properly understood as merely the denial of any naturalistic means for ontologically separating the "feeling of being me" from one person to another.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 05-13-2016 at 11:41 AM..
It is essentially a form of art judged by standards of "logical beauty" or "mathematical elegance" etc.
This is why I'd prefer this hobby to be kept as far away from actual useful fields as possible. Sure, have fun with it but try not to distract the people doing real work.
Quote:
"Materialism in the gaps" is not so commonly understood or acknowledged as "God in the gaps"
Probably because materialism-based science actually has a solid track record of filling in the gaps. Perhaps you've noticed the computer you're using or the indoor plumbing you likely have access to.
Quote:
The everyday "folk" concept of materialism has been thrown out the window, but there is no scientific or philosophical consensus on what to replace it with.
An yet science continues to advance at an incredible pace. It sounds to me like that means that these sorts of philosophical flights of fancy really don't make that much of a difference back here in reality of how actual scientists work. Seems like the problem here is philosophy not understanding a field outside of its own expertise.
Quote:
Saying that qualia are physical is one way of theoretically building the possibility of qualia into the fundamental fabric of Reality.
You can try and pitch idealism all you want, but just asserting it is possible doesn't mean that actual science is lacking anything by ignoring your speculation.
Just to be clear: I am not rejecting naturalism. My overarching goal is to find a naturalistic explanation. I'm just not convinced that naturalism has to be limited to materialism - although it depends on what you mean by "materialism."
If you don't even know how the word is used by the people you're trying to paint with it, it seems premature to say that it is insufficient to do whatever it is you think it might be missing.
Normally when people ask for evidence, they're not looking for speculation to be backed up by more speculation.
I certainly do engage in speculation. I doubt that many scientific problems have been solved without speculative thinking at some stage in the process. The first response to a speculative idea should not be "prove it with evidence." Ultimately, yes, empirical validation will be necessary, but at the point where an idea is speculative, the whole point of calling it a "speculation" is to imply that it is currently beyond the immediately available evidence. The proper response to a speculative idea is to point out logical inconsistencies and/or inconsistencies with current data. If the speculative idea fails at this stage, then there is no need to expend any effort thinking much further or trying to gather evidence. Thus I've tried to show, in each case, how my ideas are not logically or empirically invalid. So far as I can see, my proposals are consistent with current knowledge even if, speculative as they are, they go beyond current knowledge. It is hard to go anywhere interesting without taking at least a few steps into the unknown.
Another thing to keep in mind is that virtually every detail of almost every proposal that I've offered in these threads is something I've paraphrased from scientists themselves (who are, admittedly, engaging in speculation in many instances). In the case of physics: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Penrose, Feynman, Wheeler, Wigner, Susskind, Smolin... these are the types of folk I tend to paraphrase. I'm not saying that any of them advocates my whole proposal, but for the purposes of making sure that my ideas are not blatantly inconsistent with physics, I look to their formulations of essentially the same ideas, and/or their outlines of the gaps I'm trying to fill.
And, BTW, the gaps themselves are not speculative. All of the greatest minds today and in the recent past have written a lot about these gaps, and they've offered various speculations of their own for trying to fill them. In many cases, my speculations are just their speculations reapplied in slightly different ways.
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.
