Causal exclusion problem

[SelfSim]

Huh?
Perceptional models, (which include tactile, visual/observation, auditory, etc inputs), once described using language and tested, inform us on what 'physical' means .. and not the other way around ..(?)

So "physical" is just a meaningless catch-all? What purpose does it serve, then?

Well I think it serves as a word for the set of sensory based perceptional models, which most healthy, like-thinking human minds share in common, whenever we perceive that set.
The word is then shared amongst human minds as a description, using language.
The purpose is sense-making (and communications) ..(?)

 

[SelfSim]

This is an interesting statement. Can we clarify terms without connecting them to their external referrent?

Terms can be clarified by 'connecting' them, (via communication using language), with other instances of like-thinking human minds of which we are well aware. They can then be used as the meaning basis of another term called 'reality', which may or may not be distinguishable from science's meaning of its objective 'reality'.
Also, in the case of science, 'the thing itself' is never tested .. Science only ever tests its models.

And what and who decides what qualifies as science and what doesn't? Who has the final say so?

Scientifically thinking minds, demonstrating evidence of their usage of the scientific method.

 

[Fervent]

Well I think it serves as a word for the set of sensory based perceptional models, which most healthy, like-thinking human minds share in common, whenever we perceive that set.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

The word is then shared amongst human minds as a description, using language.

And how are the particulars of the language selected?

The purpose is sense-making (and communications) ..(?)

Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.

 

[Fervent]

Terms can be clarified by 'connecting' them, (via communication using language), with other instances of like-thinking human minds of which we are well aware. They can then be used as the meaning basis of another term called 'reality', which may or may not be distinguishable from science's meaning of its objective 'reality'.
Also, in the case of science, 'the thing itself' is never tested .. Science only ever tests its models.

More sound and fury signifying nothing.

Scientifically thinking minds.

Circular reasoning raises its head yet again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Tautologies can't be falsified, they can only be defined. And it's not simply a claim that I am making, but how the Bible defines God in the one place He gives His "name". Ehyeh asher Ehyah. What will be will be, I am that I am. I can only work with Biblical definitions of God when considering the Biblical God.

Well I'm not so limited.

Regardless....your god creates universes....correct?

If you don't believe me, you are free to look over a bit of the literature among theorists of mind.

I believe you want me to spend time reading this topic only to realize you weren't representing it well.

Not at all, it draws on nothing but "seemngs" or direct experience.

Ok...well try not to sound so disappointed that nobody agrees with your direct experience.

The so-called hard problem of how an individuals mind can associate with a particular body.

This hasn't been a scientific problem for some time if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, but these kinds of denials become necessary if physicalist metaphysics are taken consistently.

Do you think someone here is holding a physicalist position?

The notion that free will and consciousness are illusory is taken as a serious proposition among "scientific" thinkers and it ultimately comes down to clinging tightlly to a metaphysical construct that they can't reconsider.

I think it comes down to the difficulty of the arrival of conscious thought as a physical process.

Not really, people are only convinced as much because they have been taught not to question supervenience on the physical.

I'm more than willing to question it...in fact, present some questions.

There are other metaphysical constructs that untie many of the Gordian knots that consciousness creates for physicalist explanations.

I'm not seeing the Gordian knots.

We don't have to tie ourselves into pretzels denying what should be plain to everyone with a mind.

I think the mind is the process of active thinking and perception aimed recursively upon itself.

You are simply thinking/perceiving....not running these processes through a mind.

I don't really know what babies are born understanding,

Right.

I don't know what understanding without language means,

Indeed.

as the whole of my understanding is limited to my ability to articulate it.

I doubt that. You feel emotions, I'm sure.

I'm not suggesting the two are totally independent phenomena, just that the presumption that the mind is dependent on and fully explainable in terms of the physical structures doesn't seem warranted and seems to create conflicts that are easily solved by changiing the terms we use.

What conflicts?

Not really.

Trust me....there's a whole body of work by experts on the topic you should check out.

And that's a problem because?

Pointing out the natural/physical distinction again.

You speak your thoughts, I assume that you have them and that they provide an explanaton for your actions.

Only if understood.

My suggestion is simply procedural, the causal exclusion problem is something drawn from debates within theories of mind.

As it relates to cause and effect.

All I've done is suggested that it is the terms themselves and how they are defined that is the culprit and we don't need fanciful explanations to explain away mental phenomena as causally effective in their own right.

Ok...

Are you suggesting that no meaningful difference exists between natural and physical and therefore mental causation is both natural and physical?

Are you suggesting no meaningful difference between physical and mental exists and all causes are physical or mental?


Here's the one I like....all causes are potential effects and effects potential causes so the perception of the relationship between the two depends entirely upon what cause is sought for an effect.

Or you know....none of this matters.

No pride, more baffled at how such a simple epistemic move is so readily ignored by so many who think themselves knowledgeable.

As another poster put it...I prefer to leave the meta from my physics.

Doesn't really matter, all that matters here is whether I've made a procedural error.

You made a claim. Nothing more.

Neuroscience seems to still be struggling with several problems that has created a diverse body of robust theoretical explanations that seem more attempts to explain away mental effectiveness than explain the phenomena as they present themselves.

Again....the spilt brain experiments will disappoint you.

I didn't make the problem up, this is part of a current debate in theories of mind with multiple robust and complex theories to explain how mental phenomena are really just expressions of physical phenomena and not their own category of causal effectiveness. Mind is explained away rather than explained.

Because mind isn't a useful term.

Presumptions can create problems,

But they don't necessarily.

I've explained it enough in this thread already. If you don't understand the procedures I've used, that's a comprehension issue on your part.

Possibly. It wouldn't be the first time.

There's nothing speculative or argumentative about what I've done, just logical procedures.

If not A then C is a logical claim....but it's not much by itself.

I've taken a recognized problem from the literature surrounding theories of mind and dissolved the conflict by uncoupling a metaphysical presumption from an epistemically defensible proposition. I didn't create the problem

The problem only appears to exist in the bias of those who reject answers they find unsatisfactory.

The language is a repository, but what value are the thoughts that you are conveying

The value is communication....the very point of language....and it requires shared meaning.

Answering this moves us into waters too deep for me.

Come again?

See above.

To an extent, but perspectives don't matter to the procedures I've implemented.

Of course perspectives matter. You seem to not like purely physical explanations.

 

[SelfSim]

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

And how are the particulars of the language selected?

Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.

Hmm .. I'm not there yet, coming from the proposition you've put forward.

I may already be there, by way of inference drawn from the abundant objective evidence supporting Mind Dependent Reality Hypothesis though .. (not sure of that yet). I have long had discomfort with a metaphysical assumption (of a mind independent reality) being at the basis of scientific inquiry. I've more or less concluded, (with discomfort), that at the end of the day, it makes no difference .. so long as the objective scientific method has been reasonably adhered to, and the philsophical baggage that comes along with the assumption, has been left outside the door.

 

[SelfSim]

More sound and fury signifying nothing.

Not sure what you mean by this ..(?)

Circular reasoning raises its head yet again.

There is inevitable circularity (but not circular reasoning). Its source is more like the abundant hypothesis-verifying evidence and when there is no known, objectively demonstrable way, for us to escape our own minds .. its all up to us (using the minds we have).
I think any perceptions of circularity comes down to acceptance of that present-day 'fact'(?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I pulled this part out because I thought I might be close to understanding your point, but instead you accuse me of doing something I don't think I did.

First, let me repost my simplified version of the premises in the OP.

1. events require causes
2. mental can be a cause
3. mental is not physical

So if you make the causes of events "natural" rather than "physical" and consider the mental to be natural but non-physical, then the "natural mental" could be the sufficient "natural cause" of the first premise, where the "non-physical mental" couldn't be the sufficient "physical cause"

In the first premise, I left out [natural/physical] and then described the reinsertion below it (or the substitution, or however you wish to characterize it). Think of it as two versions (A) with "physical cause" and (B) with "natural cause". This is the same word substitution you made. As before, the claim you make is that making this substitution about cause in premise 1 removes this titular "causal exclusion problem". This is what I am trying to understand, not assert.

Calling mental causes mental causes sufficies. You're simply trying to re-assert closure on the physical rather than accepting that the metaphysical imposition is what is getting in the way of simple explanation. Nature is nature, there's no need to name it. If you want to say that physical and natural are the same thing, you are the one who needs to give an explicit definition of physical. But doing so requires us to make elaborate theories that don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

I am not making an assertion about the physical, just restating your versions in a simpler form that I am less likely to mess up. (That's also why I left out the last of your premises. I'm sure it has some purpose, but I know not what it is.) You stated earlier that the difference between "physical" and "natural" didn't need to be stated for this resolution of the titular "problem", so since I am not asserting that it is physical rather than natural, what anyone thinks they are is not relevant. (Or were you wrong about that?)

So the reason, I the reason I thought I might comprehend what your solution was is that when I looked at your first group of premises, that whole bit about events requiring physical causes and allowing mental causes were in conflict because you defined mental as explicitly not physical in the original version. When you changed the event causation to "natural" this problem is fixed, iff the non-physical mental is natural.

Since your reply (in the quoted paragraph above) asserted that I was equating natural and physical in that bit, I suspected you had not carefully read what I had read (because I very much did not do that). So I repeated it hear separately with more text. I hope that helps.

 

[Fervent]

Well I'm not so limited.

Regardless....your god creates universes....correct?

Universes? Maybe. I only know of one, and speculation about more doesn't really interest me.

I believe you want me to spend time reading this topic only to realize you weren't representing it well.

Not at all, I've plainly stated the problem as it exists within the literature. It's not my representation that is creating issues of comprehension. You seem to be objecting but not providing an indication of what it is you are objecting to exactly.

Ok...well try not to sound so disappointed that nobody agrees with your direct experience.

I don't base my opinions on consensus opinion, so I'm not really concerned with whether or not anyone agrees with me. All I'm interested in is pointing out the man behind the curtain creating the illusion of the great and powerful Oz.

This hasn't been a scientific problem for some time if I'm not mistaken.

This depends on who decides where the line between science and philosophy is, and what the nature of scientific explanation covers.

Do you think someone here is holding a physicalist position?

At least one seems likely, though I'm not sure about the metaphysical commitments of others. But no one who seems to want to object to what I've done here seems to be willing to talk about the procedures I've employed and present an actual objection.

I think it comes down to the difficulty of the arrival of conscious thought as a physical process.

An unnecessary difficulty built on an imposed metaphysical understanding. Which is what the procedures I've presented identify and everyone who has come against me has failed to address.

I'm more than willing to question it...in fact, present some questions.

You've provided evidence contrary to this claim.

I'm not seeing the Gordian knots.

Uh huh. Deny, deny, deny. Why is there so much literature addressing this theoretical problem if there is no gordian knot?

I think the mind is the process of active thinking and perception aimed recursively upon itself.

Metaphysical garbage. I don't really care what you think, as all you are doing is presenting speculation.

You are simply thinking/perceiving....not running these processes through a mind.

More metaphysical garbage.

Right.




Indeed.



I doubt that. You feel emotions, I'm sure.

Yes, certainly. I am human and can be persuaded by emotions as much as anyone else. But the procedures I've presented speak for themselves. And all people who object to them seem to be able to do is deny that there is any problem at all despite a great deal of literature responding to the problem being out there. I see plenty of evidence that claims of being amenable to evidence is a falsity among those who are the loudest about such things.

What conflicts?

Again, this is a problem taken straight out of the current debate within theories of mind. The problem is not in my explanation, but your comprehension.

Trust me....there's a whole body of work by experts on the topic you should check out.

I'm aware of the body of work out there, but basic epistemic principles are eschewed by those "experts" in order to maintain a metaphysical hypothesis despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary. There are certainly a great deal of robust elaborate theories that attempt to explain away the problem, but applying basic epistemic considerations like Occam's razor and oher heuristics for selecting among theories all of those "expert" theories are just examples of human irrationality run rampant.

Pointing out the natural/physical distinction again.

Well, yes.

Only if understood.



As it relates to cause and effect.




Ok...

Are you suggesting that no meaningful difference exists between natural and physical and therefore mental causation is both natural and physical?

Are you suggesting no meaningful difference between physical and mental exists and all causes are physical or mental?


Here's the one I like....all causes are potential effects and effects potential causes so the perception of the relationship between the two depends entirely upon what cause is sought for an effect.

Or you know....none of this matters.




As another poster put it...I prefer to leave the meta from my physics.





You made a claim. Nothing more.




Again....the spilt brain experiments will disappoint you.





Because mind isn't a useful term.





But they don't necessarily.





Possibly. It wouldn't be the first time.





If not A then C is a logical claim....but it's not much by itself.





The problem only appears to exist in the bias of those who reject answers they find unsatisfactory.




The value is communication....the very point of language....and it requires shared meaning.



See above.






Of course perspectives matter. You seem to not like purely physical explanations.

At this point it seems clear that your claims of amenability to evidence are not genuine, and that you have issues comprehending basic epistemic principles and analytic procedures. Which means there's really no point in continuing to converse with you, so goodbye and God bless.

 

[Fervent]

Not sure what you mean by this ..(?)

I mean you are doing nothing but obfuscating by increasing words.

There is inevitable circularity (but not circular reasoning). Its source is more like the abundant hypothesis-verifying evidence and when there is no known, objectively demonstrable way, for us to escape our own minds .. its all up to us (using the minds we have).
I think any perceptions of circularity comes down to acceptance of that present-day 'fact'(?)

Circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If the reasoning involved is inevitably circular, than tryng to call it something other than circular reasoning is just practicing self-deception.

 

[SelfSim]

I mean you are doing nothing but obfuscating by increasing words.

Circular reasoning is circular reasoning. If the reasoning involved is inevitably circular, than tryng to call it something other than circular reasoning is just practicing self-deception.

The reasoning isn't circular .. its the nature of the test data.
Let me remind you, the path I'm following here, is based on a testable hypothesis which generates objective test evidence and not on some metaphysical, untestable assumption. That's a big difference.
If we infer circularity arising from test data .. then so be it.

 

[Fervent]

The reasoning isn't circular .. its the nature of the test data.
Let me remind you, the path I'm following here, is based on a testable hypothesis which generates objective test evidence and not on some metaphysical, untestable assumption. That's a big difference.
If we infer circularity arising from test data .. then so be it.

Just a whole bunch of words trying to explain how your circular reasoning isn't really circular reasoning.

 

[SelfSim]

Just a whole bunch of words trying to explain how your circular reasoning isn't really circular reasoning.

I can see how you're having difficulties accepting the natural circularity there ..

 

[Fervent]

I can see how you're having difficulties accepting the natural circularity there ..

It's not "nature" that is circular, it's your method of justifying what you believe to be true about it. What you have shown is a willingness to deceive yourself by way of circularity.

 

[SelfSim]

[

It's not "nature" that is circular, it's your method of justifying what you believe to be true about it. What you have shown is a willingness to deceive yourself by way of circularity.

Let's recap this sub-discussion:

And what and who decides what qualifies as science and what doesn't? Who has the final say so?

Scientifically thinking minds, demonstrating evidence of their usage of the scientific method.

So you see circularity there.
Let me ask who else you think might decide upon what qualifies as science and what doesn't, if its not the collective of scientifically thinking minds?
(The latter of which, is clearly where any objective test conducted, would point back to)?

 

[Fervent]

[

Let's recap this sub-discussion:

So you see circularity there.
Let me ask who else you think might decide upon what qualifies as science and what doesn't, if its not the collective of scientifically thinking minds?
(The latter of which, is clearly where any objective test conducted, would point back to)?

Yeah, just circular reasoning. So what makes a "scientifically thinking mind" such that they get to define what "science" is? Lies don't become truth just because there's an academic consensus, and circular reasoning doesn't become anything but circular reasoning just because there are more participants. The majesty of the illusion goes away when you spot the feet under the curtain and recognize the man in the mix. More men hiding behind the curtain doesn't make it any more objective, it's just a bunch of circular arguments to confirm what you already believe to be true before you started to investigate.

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah, and the physicalist hypothesis decreases the sense-making ability of science on questions about consciousness. At least that's what this analysis seems to imply. The notion that everything supervenes upon the physical appears to be a suspect presumption based on semantic analysis to separate the refferrent of the words we use from the linguistic definitions we give such words.

Well thank goodness science doesn't use logic to create its fundamental models.
Science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it does not use logic to create its models.
That is obvious, you can see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are different.

 

[Fervent]

Well thank goodness science doesn't use logic to create its fundamental models.
Science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it does not use logic to create its models.
That is obvious, you can see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are different.

Elementary description of the scientific method? That's not really how science works, it's an idealization. Real science involves human beings who misinterpret data, fudge data, outright fabricate data, impose biases onto their conclusions, and on and on. The models are not independent of the semantic content, and logic applies to semantics in a very real way. Science doesn't do anything, and an idealization of the scientific process is nothing but a fairytail built on circular reasoning and consensus thought.

 

[SelfSim]

Elementary description of the scientific method? That's not really how science works, it's an idealization. Real science involves human beings who misinterpret data, fudge data, outright fabricate data, impose biases onto their conclusions, and on and on. The models are not independent of the semantic content, and logic applies to semantics in a very real way. Science doesn't do anything, and an idealization of the scientific process is nothing but a fairytail built on circular reasoning and consensus thought.

Such a cynical, merely personal opinion there, which completely ignores the evidence of what science has produced and continues to produce.

The logical 'trap' you appear to think you've invented in the OP, (which thus far, no-one supports or has seen any potential value arising from it), will have zero impact on science going forwards. Science grabs any concept it can test and makes it useful.

If there was any semblance of a scientific 'truth' its clear that there's a mountain of evidence that scientific papers/books etc distinguish between logical and scientific truths, not that they explicitly mention that they are distinguishing them .. it is obvious that they distinguish them, because scientific papers/books, etc are rife with things that do not follow purely from logical. Is that not completely obvious to you? Really? Are you going to need to open a science book to a random page and see if what is written there is a formal consequence of say, some base logical syllogism or another? Or, take two science books written 100 years apart, and decide how they could both be examples of logical syllogisms?

I say it again: science uses logic within its models, they are logical syntaxes, but it does not use logic to create its models. That is obvious, you can also see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics: they are different.
Science is known to be distinguishable by its method, regardless of your cynicism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Universes? Maybe. I only know of one, and speculation about more doesn't really interest me.

Your god is omnipotent....right?

Your god created at least 1 universe, right?

Ergo....

Not at all, I've plainly stated the problem as it exists within the literature. It's not my representation that is creating issues of comprehension.

You sure? Perhaps it would help to not present it as it is in the literature.

This depends on who decides where the line between science and philosophy is, and what the nature of scientific explanation covers.

Limits of the halves of the physical brain...and the ability for each half to simply fill in logical and memory gaps with fiction.

At least one seems likely, though I'm not sure about the metaphysical commitments of others. But no one who seems to want to object to what I've done here seems to be willing to talk about the procedures I've employed and present an actual objection.

I have not seen any procedures. Just a claim.

An unnecessary difficulty built on an imposed metaphysical understanding.

You'll find this funny...another poster here, I was just telling him people like easy answers. Maybe not on this thread though.

Uh huh. Deny, deny, deny. Why is there so much literature addressing this theoretical problem if there is no gordian knot?

Why did someone try to figure out what it's like being a bat?

Time on their hands I suppose.

Metaphysical garbage. I don't really care what you think, as all you are doing is presenting speculation.

Whoa...I didn't take a dump on your speculation.

That's all you've done btw. Speculate.

And all people who object to them seem to be able to do is deny that there is any problem at all despite a great deal of literature responding to the problem being out there.

Again, have you considered dumbing it down for those of us less well read?

Again, this is a problem taken straight out of the current debate within theories of mind. The problem is not in my explanation, but your comprehension.

You love saying that.

The problem is that the more you do....the less it appears as if you understand what the literature says.

I'm aware of the body of work out there, but basic epistemic principles are eschewed by those "experts" in order to maintain a metaphysical hypothesis despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary.

I've only ever seen evidence pile up on the physical side of this argument. Feel free to point out what I missed. For your sake and mine....don't refer me to some vague literature. I won't be researching your points for you.

Well, yes.

At this point it seems clear that your claims of amenability to evidence

Uh huh.

are not genuine, and that you have issues comprehending basic epistemic principles and analytic procedures.

Perhaps you can refer me to the literature again.

Which means there's really no point in continuing to converse with you, so goodbye and God bless.

Here's a tip...

Throwing words like "epistemic", "metaphysic", analytical logic, semantic, principles, etc...these don't inherently intimidate people. It certainly isn't impressive when you demand everyone read some author to better understand a non-problem you don't have any non-answer for.

If you take a peek....you'd notice nobody really published anything on this "problem" in 15+ years. That's because neuroscience has made huge strides in showing which parts of the brain do what....

Then there's this Elon Musk guy implanting microchips in brains and they've allowed a guy paralyzed from the neck down to operate a computer with his thoughts.

See? It doesn't really matter if you think you came up with a solution that involves pretending definitions are different and not telling anyone what they are.....

The science is rapidly moving past the question.