What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Fervent]

And, yet again, you dig in on your fixed position ..

I am simply responding to your claims, there is no metaphysically neutral method of inquiry. To pretend that science is as much is to push a false ideal and restrict where explanations can lead.

Brother, you come to a Physical and Life Sciences forum looking for support for philosophical positions based on the supposed existence of their posits held as being true, when science has no concept of truths?

And how often is it acknowledged that "science has no concept of truths"? How often is "scientifically proven" pushed as a gold standard for determining truth? My issue isn't with a theoretical method of inquiry, but with what proponants of that method smuggle in.

Wrong place for it man!

So what's the right place to discuss what science is and isn't? Where is the right place to discuss the nature of scientific explanation?

 

[SelfSim]

There are multiple materialist theories of mind, all of which are contraindicated by experience and neuroscientific data. The mere existencce of such a variety of understandings speaks to the weakness of materialist models of mind.

All good reasons to pursue the investigation in the best way we know ..

What all have in common is an insistence that mind is a product of the brain, and that commitment is from a metaphysical committment to materialism rather than due to what experimental data and experience demonstrate.

And so?
Gotta start somewhere, man .. and what better place to start out than with a temporarily pending committment to an idea that has already produced useful results?

 

[SelfSim]

I am simply responding to your claims, there is no metaphysically neutral method of inquiry. To pretend that science is as much is to push a false ideal and restrict where explanations can lead.

Other than ones which we know are untestable, specifically what other explanations are 'restricted'?

And how often is it acknowledged that "science has no concept of truths"? How often is "scientifically proven" pushed as a gold standard for determining truth? My issue isn't with a theoretical method of inquiry, but with what proponants of that method smuggle in.

I think we might share in the same view on the end result there(?)
Ie: we may well be in 'violent' agreement there!

So what's the right place to discuss what science is and isn't? Where is the right place to discuss the nature of scientific explanation?

Some Philosophy forum, I guess .. or go write a book about it, or something(?)

 

[Fervent]

All good reasons to pursue the investigation in the best way we know ..

Commitment to intellectual scrutiny is not precluded by challenging implicit metaphysics, and there's no need for a unitary investigation. Scientific explanation is incomplete without philosophical components, and the general disdain for philosophy undermines rather than enforces critical inquiry.

And so?
Gotta start somewhere, man .. and what better place to start out than with a temporarily pending committment to an idea that has already produced useful results?

"temporarily pending commitment"? In what way is it falsifiable or testable? You're just engaged in circular justification.

 

[Larniavc]

Seems to me the hostility is more because philosophy asks people to defend things that they have no defense for, so being hostile towards it allows them to preserve notions of knowledge that aren't as solid as they think.

Talking with dogmatic philosophers is like having to defend my stance on not engaging in badger baiting. I have to ask myself; is this conversation germane or will it just go round and round and avoid that actual topic. Do you see where I‘m coming from?

 

[Fervent]

Other than ones which we know are untestable, specifically what other explanations are 'restricted'?

Depends what you mean by testable, as there are ways to generate predictions from a variety of metaphysical positions such as substance dualism, hylomorphism, and idealism. They aren't directly testable per se, but they can be corroborated. But such considerations are generally resisted not on the basis of evidence but from an irrevocable commitment to materialism(the proposition that everything that exists either is material or supervenes on the material). Metaphysics impacts our scientific explanations, and the failure of materialist explanations for mind--body relationship is evident from the sheer volume of competing materialist accounts.

I think we might share in the same view on the end result there(?)
Ie: we may well be in 'violent' agreement there!

Perhaps, though I wonder why you are defending aversion to philosophy if that were the case.

Some Philosophy forum, I guess .. or go write a book about it, or something(?)

So interpretations of science are not to be disccussed in a science forum?

 

[Fervent]

Talking with dogmatic philosophers is like having to defend my stance on not engaging in badger baiting. I have to ask myself; is this conversation germane or will it just go round and round and avoid that actual topic. Do you see where I‘m coming from?

IME most dogmaatic philosophers are dogmatically naturalistic, as are most supposed "skeptics". It's not disdain for all metaphysics that seems to motivate the hostility in most cases, but disdain for all metaphysics except the one implicit in the person's worldview. It's a dodge to critically engage with skepticism toward their accepted beliefs.

 

[SelfSim]

Commitment to intellectual scrutiny is not precluded by challenging implicit metaphysics, and there's no need for a unitary investigation. Scientific explanation is incomplete without philosophical components, and the general disdain for philosophy undermines rather than enforces critical inquiry.

Sounds like a 'call to arms' for philosophy, or something?
Good luck.

"temporarily pending commitment"? In what way is it falsifiable or testable? You're just engaged in circular justification.

Are you trying to restrict an ongoing scientific investigation? (Good luck!)

There is some apparent circularity .. it appears to be an intrinsic part of how we go about understanding the universe .. but its not the only part!
Its all still a mystery to be solved!
Ain't it great?

 

[Fervent]

Sounds like a 'call to arms' for philosophy, or something?
Good luck.

Perhaps

Are you trying to restrict an ongoing scientific investigation? (Good luck!)

Not exactly, though I do believe that neuroscience is hindered by dogmatic commitment to seeking the best naturalistic explanation rather than simply pursuing the best explanation from key epistemic commitments like parsimony.

There is some apparent circularity .. it appears to be an intrinsic part of how we go about understanding the universe .. but its not the only part!
Its all still a mystery to be solved!
Ain't it great?

Circularity is circularity, and in doing so you place a prior restriction on where the evidence can lead. Acccepting that it is circular renders it untestable, which you put forward as a mediating condition. So must things be testable, or is circular justification acceptable so long as it fits your prior commitments?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bit of a circular definition, which is to say its no definition at all.

Not circular at all. Natural = within the laws of physics. I'm not sure why you found that definition hard to ingest.

That's not a definition that anyone who has faith would accept.

Oh, I remember now. U guys use "evidence of things hoped for" or something like that.

Ok

They tend to overlap, so they can be functionally synonymous as far as I'm concerned.

Just like naturalism and physicalism and materialism, hmm.

I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion across this forum, if you're interested in it you can google Libet's experiements and the conclusions that they made to see the experimental design.

OK, but it's not convincing evidence of any non-physical aspect.

That's not true, the split-brain patients expierienced a unified field of consciousness and only had deficiencies in motor functions that were invisible except under specific experimental designs.

What is a "field of consciousness"? Is it like one of the quantum fields?

There are multiple materialist theories of mind, all of which are contraindicated by experience and neuroscientific data.

Mmm sure they do.

The mere existencce of such a variety of understandings speaks to the weakness of materialist models of mind. What all have in common is an insistence that mind is a product of the brain, and that commitment is from a metaphysical committment to materialism rather than due to what experimental data and experience demonstrate.

Looks to me like neuroscience is fairly incomplete at this point. All sciences have that phase, so it's not a big deal. What is the non-physical alternative?

Failing to make a distinction implies that you haven't developed your understanding and critically assessed its validity.

Develop my understanding of philosophical navel-gazing, that's right. And I notice you aren't interested in me making the distinction in this thread since you won't define a distinction. Oh well.

I'm not the one who is imposing a restriction on where explanations can lead. So perhaps you can offer a distinction that is testable and falsifiable?

What's this got to do with your failure to define materialism?

It's unintelligible because the concept of a non-conscious observer is a self-contradictory concept. Observations require conscious observers, so in 3 of the 4 most tenable interpretations there is a need for a term that is only coherent with consciousness of some sort. Separating out observers from consciousness is an unintelligible concept, even if it is a mathematical construct.

Stop thinking of QM "observers" and observers and use "interactors" instead. Any external thing interacting with a quantum system can change its state. Intent, or consciousness IS NOT REQUIRED.

I'm of the opinion that the two are inseparable, and philosophy of mind is a life science. Your unwillingness to engage in philosophical discussion simply appears to be an unwillingness to step out of your metaphysical assumptions about reality and submit them to scrutiny. Insisting that naturalist explanations are the only places science can go is nothing more than restricting what explanations are available, and disallowing going wherever the evidence may lead.

And I think one is irrelevant. So. What. One of them is in the title of this subsection, the other is not.

 

[SelfSim]

Metaphysics impacts our scientific explanations, and the failure of materialist explanations for mind--body relationship is evident from the sheer volume of competing materialist accounts.

'Failure' is such an impatient judgment call .. intellecutally lazy really, wouldn't you say?

So interpretations of science are not to be disccussed in a science forum?

The outward looking view of science tends to generate its own philosophy. Interpretations are a bridge for moving forwards with the ongoing investigations. (This has gone on for as long as science and thinking humans have been around ..)

Outward looking discussions, starting from scientific investigative results, helps shape practical philosophical approaches. Its good to discuss approaches rooted in the science.

 

[Fervent]

Not circular at all. Natural = within the laws of physics. I'm not sure why you found that definition hard to ingest.

It's entirely circular when you view them as synonymous, which renders the definition meaningless because it expresses nothing but a tautology. Either it's based on an unknown hypothetical future physics, or its a false statement built on a physics that is clearly incomplete since there is no unified "laws of physics" to speak of

Oh, I remember now. U guys use "evidence of things hoped for" or something like that.

Not exactly, I gave you my definition. An a priori belief that is irrevocably held due to its inherently untestable nature. You know, like your commitment to physics as determining what kinds of things there are that exist.

Just like naturalism and physicalism and materialism, hmm.

I suppose.

OK, but it's not convincing evidence of any non-physical aspect.

As any good dogmatic materialist would say. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to you since there's no room for semantics and a true self in materialism, so the only thing that would have the power to change your mind is some physical interaction rather than the mental interaction involved in an exchange of ideas. You do believe that ideas can cause you to believe new things, right? So how does that happen if the only thing that matters is the physical operations of the brain?

What is a "field of consciousness"? Is it like one of the quantum fields?

It's the subjective experience of all of the stimuli currently present to an individual person.

Mmm sure they do.

Looks to me like neuroscience is fairly incomplete at this point. All sciences have that phase, so it's not a big deal. What is the non-physical alternative?

The non-physical alternatives are hylomorphism, substance dualism, idealism, dual aspect monism, among many others. But the issue isn't a matter of incompleteness, as the issues are qualitative not quantitative so there's no reason to think that more data will change anything. The challenge of Liebniz' law of the indiscernability of identicals isn't going away.

Develop my understanding of philosophical navel-gazing, that's right. And I notice you aren't interested in me making the distinction in this thread since you won't define a distinction. Oh well.

I'm not the one imposing a restriction on where explanations can go. So perhaps you could define it in a way that is falsifiable, that is the "scientific" standard is it not? So define what you believe in a way that is consistent with your espoused principles rather than just adopting aa circular justification.

What's this got to do with your failure to define materialism?

It's not on me to define it, it's on those who believe it to be true. Why are you trying to push your epistemic responsibilities onto me?

Stop thinking of QM "observers" and observers and use "interactors" instead. Any external thing interacting with a quantum system can change its state. Intent, or consciousness IS NOT REQUIRED.

And I suppose that comes from observation of the universe when no one is observing it?

And I think one is irrelevant. So. What. One of them is in the title of this subsection, the other is not.

Philosophy is unavoidable, deriding it is merely absolving oneself of epistemic responsibility to be critical of one's personal beliefs. And how science is interpreted, including the philosophical lenses we use, is critical to scientific explanation.. Or is the nature of scientific explanation irrelevant to science?

 

[Fervent]

'Failure' is such an impatient judgment call .. intellecutally lazy really, wouldn't you say?

Perhaps that is a better term, though when I speak of failure I am referring to the insufficiency that materialist explanations have in accounting for the current body of evidence from neuroscience and practical experience. All materialist explanations eventually collapse into either elimintavism or epiphenomenalism, neither of which seems to capture the mind-body relationship and both of which undermine any confidence we have in what science generates since it is thoroughly mental enterprise in constructing theories and experimental designs.

The outward looking view of science tends to generate its own philosophy. Interpretations are a bridge for moving forwards with the ongoing investigations. (This has gone on for as long as science and thinking humans have been around ..)

Outward looking discussions, starting from scientific investigative results, helps shape practical philosophical approaches. Its good to discuss approaches rooted in the science.

That's exactly why it fails, because it only accounts for half the picture. Introspective experience is more secure than external evidence, but modern epistemics tend to ignore the fact that experience is the base of epistemics and instead jump to the external world and refuse to look back to see how they got from conscious experience to "objective" testing. Science is a tool to build a model, but all too often science enthusiasts reify the model and refuse to question the metaphysical basis of their position.

 

[Bradskii]

Uh huh...so you don't want neuroscientists who believe mind=brain? Seems like an ad hoc stipulation.

I can't see any benefit in including them. I just want to know if the dragon is real.

Right..so you want physicists who don't believe that physics could possibly be true?

Don't be silly.

 

[Fervent]

I can't see any benefit in including them. I just want to know if the dragon is real.

Seems to me your stipulation is ad hoc and completely unnecessary.

Don't be silly.

What? You said you want people who don't believe in the thing they're studying. So why wouldn't you demand the same of physicists? Why not expect them to be trying to disprove naturalism/physicalism?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's entirely circular when you view them as synonymous, which renders the definition meaningless because it expresses nothing but a tautology.

Not even close to circular. I defined it based on the things that are "natural", ie, the formation of a category. In the first response with detail I also included dark matter and dark energy tentatively while we work out what they are. I could go beyond that to include any other regular and testable substance or force that we might find in the future.

Either it's based on an unknown hypothetical future physics, or its a false statement built on a physics that is clearly incomplete since there is no unified "laws of physics" to speak of

The unification of physics is not relevant to the question. Whether gravity can be unified with the other forces does not change the presence of *both* within "natural". The belief that all 4 forces can be unified is just that -- a belief. It is not one I hold. Either they can or cannot be unified, it matters not to me.

Not exactly, I gave you my definition. An a priori belief that is irrevocably held due to its inherently untestable nature. You know, like your commitment to physics as determining what kinds of things there are that exist.

I suppose.

I shall keep that in mind.

As any good dogmatic materialist would say. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to you since there's no room for semantics and a true self in materialism, so the only thing that would have the power to change your mind is some physical interaction rather than the mental interaction involved in an exchange of ideas. You do believe that ideas can cause you to believe new things, right? So how does that happen if the only thing that matters is the physical operations of the brain?

I base things on evidence. No evidence of spiritualism is given. No evidence of consciousness outside brains is given, etc.

It's the subjective experience of all of the stimuli currently present to an individual person.

And you're going to build some sort of proof around this subjective "consciousness field"? I doubt the studies you were referring to make such a weak argument or determination.

The non-physical alternatives are hylomorphism, substance dualism, idealism, dual aspect monism, among many others.

I've heard of one of those (dualism) and it seems nothing more than wishful thinking about souls, etc. No attempts are made to explain how it could interact with the flesh parts.

But the issue isn't a matter of incompleteness, as the issues are qualitative not quantitative so there's no reason to think that more data will change anything.

These claims that brain activity isn't responsible for certain aspect of mind activity are based on the failure of fMRI to detect things, isn't it? It's a fairly crude technology.

The challenge of Liebniz' law of the indiscernability of identicals isn't going away.

What "identicals" aren't indiscernible?

I'm not the one imposing a restriction on where explanations can go. So perhaps you could define it in a way that is falsifiable, that is the "scientific" standard is it not? So define what you believe in a way that is consistent with your espoused principles rather than just adopting aa circular justification.

It's not on me to define it, it's on those who believe it to be true. Why are you trying to push your epistemic responsibilities onto me?

You want me to define the difference between naturalism, etc. Well here is the definition I'm going to use:

Naturalism = Physicalism = Materialism

I don't know what sort of "falsifiability could exist in a definition, particularly of the non-falsifiable "philosophy" stuff.

And I suppose that comes from observation of the universe when no one is observing it?

Wow, you really have no clue what you are talking about. All of these conscious observers in the various examples you have seen involve causing some particle or field to interact with a quantum system. We can observe quantum mechanical things happening in distant stars and galaxies. Stars and galaxies that are so far away that any attempt to "observe" the quantum state of a system would not have made it to and from that object in the lifetime of our species (and in some cases the Universe). What ever (non conscious) observation occurred did not involve any conscious being we know of.

Perhaps more relevant is that no formulation of QM uses conscious beings in the way you are implying.

Philosophy is unavoidable, deriding it is merely absolving oneself of epistemic responsibility to be critical of one's personal beliefs. And how science is interpreted, including the philosophical lenses we use, is critical to scientific explanation.. Or is the nature of scientific explanation irrelevant to science?

You know I don't read your ending screeds about philoslopy anymore, right?

 

[Bradskii]

Given the context and subtext, the dragon is an analogue and not the true focus of the conversation.

No, it really is. The discussion is about faith based belief versus evidence based belief. If I told you there was a dragon in the basement and you simply believed me then it would be faith based. If you had a few dozen people help you examine it and it proved to be real then it would be an evidence based belief. It's that simple. Although you seem determined to head off into the weeds at every opportunity. Try to concentrate on what the discussion is about.

I'm simply presenting skeptical hypotheses, didn't you make a blanket affirmation of skepticism? Now it's "complicated"?

You're making it so.

Considering you're not a solipsist, and I doubt you would take solipsism seriously, you clearly don't doubt everything.

I don't doubt things as such. I'm reasonably confident on a lot of matters. Extremely confident on a few. With the rider that I will hold my position until given evidence to the contrary.

Previous posts say nothing, other than that you accept "peer review" which simply moves the question up a level considering there are numerous journals of varying quality which requires some expertise in the field to distinguish which journals are reliable and which are full of nonsense. So how do you determine what sources are trustworthy without simply trusting the word of some stranger or institution?

You are quite determined to try to show that you really can't trust anyone. I hope that doesn't impact your faith.

Not quite, I'm expecting those who build their worldview around a metaphysical framework and then insist on a methodology that only considers things that are amenable to that framework to defend their framework philosophically.

This is about evidence v faith based belief. Get out of the weeds, please.

 

[Bradskii]

What? You said you want people who don't believe in the thing they're studying.

There's a difference in an a priori belief in the existence of the thing they are going to study and having a belief in the efficacy of the means by which they study it. As I said, you are being silly in suggesting that the latter is not required.

 

[Fervent]

Not even close to circular. I defined it based on the things that are "natural", ie, the formation of a category. In the first response with detail I also included dark matter and dark energy tentatively while we work out what they are. I could go beyond that to include any other regular and testable substance or force that we might find in the future.

You honestly don't see the circularity in your position? You presume the world to be physical, and then refuse to define physical in a way that doesn't simply capture all demonstrable phenomena, and then refuse to venture into anything but physics to challenge that definition. You've locked yourself in a circle tht can't possibly be demonstrated wrong.

The unification of physics is not relevant to the question. Whether gravity can be unified with the other forces does not change the presence of *both* within "natural". The belief that all 4 forces can be unified is just that -- a belief. It is not one I hold. Either they can or cannot be unified, it matters not to me.

It absolutely is if you want to claim that physics is what determines what kinds of things there are that exist. The lack of clarity on the issue at present undermines any belief about the kinds of things that exist since it is apparent from the disunity that our present understanding of physics is likely radically in error.

I shall keep that in mind.

Don't you mean in brain?

I base things on evidence. No evidence of spiritualism is given. No evidence of consciousness outside brains is given, etc.

And how do you mediate that evidence? Aren't you just a clockspring following mindless physical laws?

And you're going to build some sort of proof around this subjective "consciousness field"? I doubt the studies you were referring to make such a weak argument or determination.

Experience is the ground of epistemics, physicaal facts are neccessarily mediated through consciousness so treating them as more secure than our subjective experience is misguided at the very least.

I've heard of one of those (dualism) and it seems nothing more than wishful thinking about souls, etc. No attempts are made to explain how it could interact with the flesh parts.

Completely unsurprising you would say as much from your dogmatic position on physics and refusal to question what it is you believe about metaphysics by dismissing any discussion of metaphysics.

These claims that brain activity isn't responsible for certain aspect of mind activity are based on the failure of fMRI to detect things, isn't it? It's a fairly crude technology.

Not exactly, that's just one of the evidential pieces. The argument against materialism is more based on the absurd positions that are treated as legitimate in physicalist circles because there are no good physicalist alternatives.

What "identicals" aren't indiscernible?

Mind and brain present different properties, for example intentionality.

You want me to define the difference between naturalism, etc. Well here is the definition I'm going to use:

Naturalism = Physicalism = Materialism

I don't know what sort of "falsifiability could exist in a definition, particularly of the non-falsifiable "philosophy" stuff.

So you believe in something that is unfalsifiable? Or do you not really believe in naturalism/materialism/physicalism? How did you come by that belief?

Wow, you really have no clue what you are talking about. All of these conscious observers in the various examples you have seen involve causing some particle or field to interact with a quantum system. We can observe quantum mechanical things happening in distant stars and galaxies. Stars and galaxies that are so far away that any attempt to "observe" the quantum state of a system would not have made it to and from that object in the lifetime of our species (and in some cases the Universe). What ever (non conscious) observation occurred did not involve any conscious being we know of.

Perhaps more relevant is that no formulation of QM uses conscious beings in the way you are implying.

You know I don't read your ending screeds about philoslopy anymore, right?

So you don't read them, but you respond? Why is that, exactly?

 

[Fervent]

There's a difference in an a priori belief in the existence of the thing they are going to study and having a belief in the efficacy of the means by which they study it. As I said, you are being silly in suggesting that the latter is not required.

Certainly, but by your stipulation wouldn't you desire disbelief in what they are studying as a virtue? Don't you want them trying to disprove the reality of what they intend to study?