Physicalism

[VirOptimus]

Yes. So abysmally bad that it is right in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

P.S. Did you mean "incredible" or "incredibly?"

Incredibly of course.

 

[sfs]

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Leprechauns are defined as diminutive sprites that can be physically seized and held and that, if someone is successful in physically overpowering the leprechaun, the creature will reveal the secret hiding place of its treasure. Thus, you are conflating physical (but never observed creatures) with non-physical qualia and/or a non-physical Supreme Being or, more generically, non-physical forces (such as God's spirit) that can have real effects on physical matter. The two are quite different.

I think you're confusing an aside with an argument. More to the point, you have not repaired any of the logical flaws in your argument. Try addressing them instead of leprechauns.

Here you have entered into an argument that I consider intellectually dishonest.

Uh huh.

It is often claimed that Darwinism is separate from the theory of abiogenesis, but this is untrue. Darwinism in general, and the theory of common descent in particular, can be true if (and only if) it can be demonstrated that life arose spontaneously once and only once from non-life.

This is patently false. Darwinism, as stated by Darwin leaves open the possibility both of direct divine creation of the first life, and of there being multiple origins of life: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwinian evolution does not require universal common descent.

If abiogenesis is common enough to occur multiple times, then the claim that all life shares a common ancestor is de facto false.

Also false. Even universal common descent does not require abiogenesis to have occurred only once. All it requires is that all extant life stem from a single ancestor.

Similarly, if God created life, then one must suppose that God limited himself to one solitary act of creation and then let Darwinism take over. This is an unrealistic assumption. Once one accepts the existence of a creator, Darwinism becomes an unnecessary hypothesis.

I do accept the existence of a creator, and I can discern no relevance of your argument actual evolutionary biology. The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to explain the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity we see between existing organisms. Where the first life forms came from is irrelevant to that goal.

 

[The Cadet]

I think that you're "resolving" the problem by denying it and/or confusing it with the so-called "easy" problem of consciousness.

Oh. Well in that case, you should phrase your problem more carefully, as your original problem is stunningly easy to resolve.

 

[whois]

As Steven Harnard points out (see http://cogprints.org/1601/6/harnad95.zombies.html )
"Quarks, like consciousness, cannot be observed directly, but there are many things that follow from quarks' existing or not existing, and those things can be observed. Does anything follow from the existence of consciousness, that would not follow just as readily if we were all Zombies who merely acted exactly as if they were conscious?...

"So we will assume, instead, that consciousness is not an autonomous force, but some property or aspect of the ordinary physical forces we already know. If so, then it is incumbent on anyone who thinks he can tell the Zombie from the real thing that he be able to say what this property is. This is a notoriously difficult thing to do; in fact, I'm willing to bet it's impossible, and will even say why:

"
(1) How could you ever determine whether that supposition -- that that's the property that distinguishes conscious things from unconscious ones -- was correct? That's the other-minds problem again.

But now let's suppose that the supposition -- that that's the property that distinguishes conscious things from unconscious ones -- was, miraculously, true, even though there was no way we could know it was true:

(2) In what, specifically, would its truth consist? What is it that something would lack if it lacked consciousness yet had the property you picked out? For if you pick anything other than consciousness itself as the thing it would lack if it lacked that property that was supposed to be the determinant of consciousness (which would be a bit circular), then one can always say: why can't it have that property without the consciousness? And no one has even the faintest inkling of what could count as a satisfactory answer to that question."

(emphasis added)

can someone break this down for me?
what exactly is being said here?
is this guy professing some kind of comparison to a simulated consciousness?
if so, then simulators cannot process the unknown, they cannot simulate that which they weren't programmed for.

 

[whois]

It is your argument that is invalid because my argument does not contain the phrase "know everything there is to know." I claimed that she knew all physical facts. Since she discovers a new fact upon seeing a red for the first time, it follows that this is not a physical fact.

this is one of the nicest things about "thought experiments", they are great at getting your point across, but they are worthless as evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Imagine, if you will, a super-scientist far in the future named Mary.

I think you will find that most of society takes the position that well evidenced science is far superior to made up stories.

For example, you could say, "Imagine that pulling on your shoelaces will allow you to float in mid air". You could compare that to real world experiments and real physics that says pulling on your shoelaces will not allow you to counteract gravity. Which do you go with? Your imagination or the evidence?

 

[Zosimus]

I think you're confusing an aside with an argument. More to the point, you have not repaired any of the logical flaws in your argument. Try addressing them instead of leprechauns.

You objected. I shot your objection down. What's the problem?

This is patently false. Darwinism, as stated by Darwin leaves open the possibility both of direct divine creation of the first life, and of there being multiple origins of life: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Darwinian evolution does not require universal common descent.

As you well know, Darwinism now is not the same as Darwinism from the mouth of Darwin. Darwin, for example, wholly accepted the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Accordingly, quotes from Darwin are irrelevant.

Also false. Even universal common descent does not require abiogenesis to have occurred only once. All it requires is that all extant life stem from a single ancestor.

You are digging the hole deeper. Now you need to demonstrate not only that abiogenesis occurred rarely but also that all the descendants of other episodes of abiogenesis died out? It certainly seems like a tall order. Well, you may begin at any time.

I do accept the existence of a creator, and I can discern no relevance of your argument actual evolutionary biology. The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to explain the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity we see between existing organisms. Where the first life forms came from is irrelevant to that goal.

If you accept a creator, then you are on the horns of the same dilemma above. You must demonstrate either that he created only once or that all of his creations died out except for one line.

Additionally, Darwinian evolution doesn't have motivation. It's a theory.

Fir

 

[Zosimus]

Oh. Well in that case, you should phrase your problem more carefully, as your original problem is stunningly easy to resolve.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the argument. Maybe you should have googled it.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/jackson/marys-room/

"Mary lives her entire life in a room devoid of colour—she has never directly experienced colour in her entire life, though she is capable of it. Through black-and-white books and other media, she is educated on neuroscience to the point where she becomes an expert on the subject. Mary learns everything there is to know about the perception of colour in the brain, as well as the physical facts about how light works in order to create the different colour wavelengths. It can be said that Mary is aware of all physical facts about colour and colour perception.

"After Mary’s studies on colour perception in the brain are complete, she exits the room and experiences, for the very first time, direct colour perception. She sees the colour red for the very first time, and learns something new about it — namely, what red looks like.

"Jackson concluded that if physicalism is true, Mary ought to have gained total knowledge about colour perception by examining the physical world. But since there is something she learns when she leaves the room, then physicalism must be false."
-------------
There you go. If you don't get that explanation, try http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

Explicit formulation of the knowledge argument (stronger version) :
Premise P1 Mary has complete physical knowledge about human color vision before her release.

Therefore

Consequence C1 Mary knows all the physical facts about human color vision before her release.
Premise P2 There is some (kind of) knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that Mary does not have before her release.
Therefore (from (P2)):

Consequence C2 There are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.
Therefore (from (C1) and (C2)):

Consequence C3 There are non-physical facts about human color vision.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sorry you didn't understand the argument. Maybe you should have googled it.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/jackson/marys-room/

"Mary lives her entire life in a room devoid of colour—she has never directly experienced colour in her entire life, though she is capable of it. Through black-and-white books and other media, she is educated on neuroscience to the point where she becomes an expert on the subject. Mary learns everything there is to know about the perception of colour in the brain, as well as the physical facts about how light works in order to create the different colour wavelengths. It can be said that Mary is aware of all physical facts about colour and colour perception.

"After Mary’s studies on colour perception in the brain are complete, she exits the room and experiences, for the very first time, direct colour perception. She sees the colour red for the very first time, and learns something new about it — namely, what red looks like.

"Jackson concluded that if physicalism is true, Mary ought to have gained total knowledge about colour perception by examining the physical world. But since there is something she learns when she leaves the room, then physicalism must be false."
-------------
There you go. If you don't get that explanation, try http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

Explicit formulation of the knowledge argument (stronger version) :
Premise P1 Mary has complete physical knowledge about human color vision before her release.

Therefore

Consequence C1 Mary knows all the physical facts about human color vision before her release.
Premise P2 There is some (kind of) knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that Mary does not have before her release.
Therefore (from (P2)):

Consequence C2 There are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.
Therefore (from (C1) and (C2)):

Consequence C3 There are non-physical facts about human color vision.

Are we ignoring spectrometers where everyone can measure the intensity of light at all wavelengths, visible and invisible, in an empirical and verifiable fashion?

 

[Zosimus]

this is one of the nicest things about "thought experiments", they are great at getting your point across, but they are worthless as evidence.

Logical arguments require the use of logic not evidence. In fact, most of the links I've provided include the most noteworthy attempts to refute the argument. All you really have to do is read through the link, pick an objection you think tenable and express it here.

 

[Zosimus]

I think you will find that most of society takes the position that well evidenced science is far superior to made up stories.

For example, you could say, "Imagine that pulling on your shoelaces will allow you to float in mid air". You could compare that to real world experiments and real physics that says pulling on your shoelaces will not allow you to counteract gravity. Which do you go with? Your imagination or the evidence?

Since that is your position, I forbid you to ever again claim that it might be possible to falsify evolution by finding a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. After all, this is a made up story and "most of society" (note: appeal to popularity logical fallacy) "takes the position that well evidenced (sic) science is far superior to made up stories."

 

[Loudmouth]

Since that is your position, I forbid you to ever again claim that it might be possible to falsify evolution by finding a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian. After all, this is a made up story and "most of society" (note: appeal to popularity logical fallacy) "takes the position that well evidenced (sic) science is far superior to made up stories."

It isn't a made up story. If you did find a rabbit in the Cambrian it would falsify evolution.

 

[Zosimus]

It isn't a made up story. If you did find a rabbit in the Cambrian it would falsify evolution.

Untrue. However, if you think so, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit#Would_anachronistic_fossils_disprove_evolution.3F and edit it to say yes. We'll see how long it will be till someone reverts your changes.

Reportedly Dr. Stephen Westrop similarly doubts that the find would do much. He is quoted at http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/that-unfalsifiable-cambrian-rabbit-and-sanity/ but I cannot find a link to the original source.

Precambrian rabbit fossils are just another example of the Tacking Paradox. Not that you'd know much about that, I suppose. But let's tackle it together, shall we?

1. Do you think that Darwinism entails nested hierarchies?
2. Do you think that finding nested hierarchies provides evidential support for Darwinism?
3. Do you think that Darwinism entails that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
4. Then do you think that finding nested hierarchies provides evidential support that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

Warning: If you answer yes to all of the above, you fall straight into the tacking paradox.

 

[Loudmouth]

Untrue.

True.

1. Do you think that Darwinism entails nested hierarchies?
2. Do you think that finding nested hierarchies provides evidential support for Darwinism?
3. Do you think that Darwinism entails that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
4. Then do you think that finding nested hierarchies provides evidential support that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?

Warning: If you answer yes to all of the above, you fall straight into the tacking paradox.

Like most threads, you reject the scientific method. For the rest of us, we accept the scientific method.

 

[The Cadet]

Explicit formulation of the knowledge argument (stronger version) :
Premise P1 Mary has complete physical knowledge about human color vision before her release.

Therefore

Consequence C1 Mary knows all the physical facts about human color vision before her release.
Premise P2 There is some (kind of) knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that Mary does not have before her release.
Therefore (from (P2)):

Consequence C2 There are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.
Therefore (from (C1) and (C2)):
Consequence C3 There are non-physical facts about human color vision.

Right, and I reject premise 2 as completely unfounded. If she has complete physical knowledge, she has complete physical knowledge. You don't get around this by claiming that her internal physical knowledge is somehow not physical knowledge.

 

[whois]

Logical arguments require the use of logic not evidence. In fact, most of the links I've provided include the most noteworthy attempts to refute the argument. All you really have to do is read through the link, pick an objection you think tenable and express it here.

my biggest complaint is that you haven't provided any links between your thought experiment and reality.
for example, you mentioned mary had the knowledge of all physical laws including all about rods and cones in the eye.
there is no reason for rods and cones in a B/W world.
certainly mary questioned this, and as soon as the started asking questions this proves she did not have all physical knowledge.
IOW, there must be an explanation for the rods and cones, and that is to decode colors, and she had to know that

 

[Zosimus]

Like most threads, you reject the scientific method. For the rest of us, we accept the scientific method.

"Like most threads, you..."

You think I'm like most threads? People are not like threads.

You say that you accept the scientific method, but you have not indicated how you resolve any of the problems involved with it. How do you deal with Hempel's paradox? How do you deal with the problem of grue, blite, and blurple? How do you avoid the tacking problem? You don't -- you don't even recognize the existence of any of these problems.

Read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/#TwoParOthDif and explain how the difficulties with confirmation can be overcome. Then, and only then, will you be able to make any kind of credible case that you have confirmed your theories correct.

 

[Zosimus]

Right, and I reject premise 2 as completely unfounded. If she has complete physical knowledge, she has complete physical knowledge. You don't get around this by claiming that her internal physical knowledge is somehow not physical knowledge.

No one is claiming that her internal physical knowledge is not physical knowledge. Her knowledge of what something is like is not physical. That's why physicalism fails.

The solution to the problem is not to bury your head in the sand and claim that it doesn't exist. If you have problem formulating a reasonable response, you might try reading the proposals that other reductionist physicalists have put forward to try to refute the argument.

 

[Zosimus]

my biggest complaint is that you haven't provided any links between your thought experiment and reality.
for example, you mentioned mary had the knowledge of all physical laws including all about rods and cones in the eye.
there is no reason for rods and cones in a B/W world.
certainly mary questioned this, and as soon as the started asking questions this proves she did not have all physical knowledge.
IOW, there must be an explanation for the rods and cones, and that is to decode colors, and she had to know that

This is not a valid argument. It could easily be gotten around by supposing that Mary lives underground in a post-apocalyptic world that is illuminated by strictly blue bulbs because that's all that can be made. Mary knows that red exists, and even that some things are red, but viewed under blue bulbs they appear black. However, at some point in the future she emerges into the light of the sun and sees red for the first time. At that moment, she learns what it's like to see red.

Thus, you see that your potential argument that "There is no reason for rods and cones in a B/W world is refuted."

Additionally, your argument is factually incorrect. Rods do not produce color vision; cones do.

Nor need we assume that Mary does not know the purpose of cones. Simply because you have not experienced a specific color does not mean that you do not know how vision works.

 

[whois]

Mary knows that red exists, and even that some things are red, but viewed under blue bulbs they appear black. However, at some point in the future she emerges into the light of the sun and sees red for the first time. At that moment, she learns what it's like to see red.

at this point i'm not quite sure what your argument is attempting to prove or say.

Additionally, your argument is factually incorrect. Rods do not produce color vision; cones do.

i was wondering if you was going to catch this.
this is also incorrect, the cones do not produce red, the brain does.
this type of argument is now moving into how a color TV works, and there is nothing mystical about a TV.

like i said, i'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say here.