Causal exclusion problem

[SelfSim]

Most people don't consider the musings of a philosopher based upon their "direct experience" or more properly....their ability to self analyze their own mental processes as "well supported".

Are you one of those people? Eg: Do you consider your own consciousness 'well supported'?
How about your own self-awareness?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Everyday experience? What are you going to invoke next? Common sense?

The only thing I see evidenced here is an unwillingness to actually analyze the available data according to common epistemic principles and instead favoring elaborate ad hoc theories to preserve an existing paradigm.

BTW, this is my new favorite thing. Anytime anyone invokes epistemics....I'll respond with the notion that my epistemics are "common sense".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you one of those people? Eg: Do you consider your own consciousness 'well supported'?
How about your own self-awareness?

I think our ability of self analysis of our own mental processes is necessarily inhibited by those very mental processes. So no...I wouldn't consider my own consciousness "well supported". That said, inside of areas of expertise, wherein direct knowledge does lend a degree of authority regarding experience....sure, I defer to expertise. This does stop though, under certain circumstances. Situations like...

1. Expertise is claimed in a subject that I do not believe it exists.
2. The experts consistently fail to adequately explain the subject on which they claim expertise.
3. The experts all agree, in contradiction with my basic understanding of the subject, and this cannot be reconciled easily by a failure of my understanding or an explanation of their expertise.

I can give examples if you want...but anyway, no, I only trust my own consciousness better than others where we are relative equals in expertise. I also don't ask people to accept my word for everything as if my understanding is entirely trustworthy. I have the same cognitive biases as everyone else.

If self awareness is a matter of understanding the exact process of thinking....no. Perception itself hides such things. If self-awareness is an understanding of my own flaws and limitations and acceptance of them....I think I'd say I'm pretty self aware. I may come off as argumentative or unnecessarily quarrelsome...but that's because I believe that beliefs are best tested for truthfulness by those who disagree with them....and the strength of their arguments.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, it was jab about me. The poster is bothered I don't care about whatever "metaphysics" they think should get in the way of my understanding of physics.

I think he believes the word means something it doesn't.

 

[SelfSim]

I think our ability of self analysis of our own mental processes is necessarily inhibited by those very mental processes. So no...I wouldn't consider my own consciousness "well supported". That said, inside of areas of expertise, wherein direct knowledge does lend a degree of authority regarding experience....sure, I defer to expertise. This does stop though, under certain circumstances. Situations like...

1. Expertise is claimed in a subject that I do not believe it exists.
2. The experts consistently fail to adequately explain the subject on which they claim expertise.
3. The experts all agree, in contradiction with my basic understanding of the subject, and this cannot be reconciled easily by a failure of my understanding or an explanation of their expertise.

I can give examples if you want...but anyway, no, I only trust my own consciousness better than others where we are relative equals in expertise. I also don't ask people to accept my word for everything as if my understanding is entirely trustworthy. I have the same cognitive biases as everyone else.

If self awareness is a matter of understanding the exact process of thinking....no. Perception itself hides such things. If self-awareness is an understanding of my own flaws and limitations and acceptance of them....I think I'd say I'm pretty self aware. I may come off as argumentative or unnecessarily quarrelsome...but that's because I believe that beliefs are best tested for truthfulness by those who disagree with them....and the strength of their arguments.

Interesting answer.

So, do you believe consciousness exists?
Are you then not deferring to your own 'direct experience' in answering that question, given that everyone is more or less on an equal footing when it comes to assessing the existence of human consciousness?
Is it a belief .. or does it actually exist? How does one tell the difference there?

I'll come clean here: All I know is that if we don't all share in, then agree, that consciousness actually exists, then we won't have a common basis for agreeing on anything 'actually existing', from thereon(?) This agreement must then be on the basis of 'direct experience' .. whether its well supported, or not(?)
I dunno ..(?)

 

[Fervent]

And here I thought the physical model of mind involved electrochemical patterns in networks of neurons and not raising/lowering operators.

"physical model of mind"? Why should we presume such a thing, when such theories require unnecessary extravagencies and ad hoc adjustments?

As if those are the only way to detect physical things. SMH.

Everyday experience? What are you going to invoke next? Common sense?

Common sense is the first rule of epistemics, though that's not where it ends. If a position leads to believing something that makes no real sense, then it lkely is a false belief. And physicalist metaphysics lead to absurd conclusions when we begin discussing issues of the mind and body. There is no reason for elaborate theories to explain away mind as if it is just some physical thing despite having no similarities. Your metaphysics is leading your epistemics.

You've fallen into the false dichotomy hole. Not being able to support "Mental is not physical" is not the same as claiming "Mental is physical". I thought you understood logic?

Never said converses were in play.

Isn't your claim that this "problem" and the related premises are part of some academic consensus? It is not I that claims connection to an academic philosophical consensus.

The problem is seen as an open problem among theorists of mind, with a variety of responses none of which is able to extend to a consensus.

BTW, this is my new favorite thing. Anytime anyone invokes epistemics....I'll respond with the notion that my epistemics are "common sense".

Except your epistemics are not common sense, because you begin with an assumption about external reality that eventually requires elimination of the subjective if it is taken on a consistent basis. Epistemics begins with common sense, as anything that can be held true in our everyday experiences can be accepted until undermined. But there are certainly more rules to epistemics than just that. My point in this thread was not to convince those who are sold out to physicalist metaphysics to the point where they can no longer even see that their assumptions are metaphysical, it was to demonstrate that the "naturalist" claim that they make no impositions on nature is false. If it were true, there would be no pushback about leaving the closure principle defined as closure on the natural. Because if physical closure were true, closure on the natural would lead to the conclusion of physical closure. So why are people who deny having metaphysics so offended by the notion of adopting a metaphysically neutral language and allowing the chips to fall where they may?

 

[Fervent]

Sorry, it was jab about me. The poster is bothered I don't care about whatever "metaphysics" they think should get in the way of my understanding of physics.

I'm not bothered, I find it rather amusing how blinded you are to your metaphysics. A simple question, if you're not imposing an understanding onto reality why do you resist adjusting the closure principle so that the language is metaphysically neutral? If your only concern is employing a scientific method of modeling reality, why do you seem offended by the proposition of dropping "physical" from our lexicon and letting natural causes just be natural causes?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting answer.

So, do you believe consciousness exists?

Sorry....when you asked if I considered my own consciousness "well supported" I thought you were asking if I considered my own conscious experiences as "well supported evidence".

If you're literally just asking me about my own consciousness....supported by what exactly? I'm the only one who can experience it.

I'll come clean here: All I know is that if we don't all share in, then agree, that consciousness actually exists, then we won't have a common basis for agreeing on anything 'actually existing', from thereon(?)

We don't actually need to agree with this.

It really depends upon what exactly you mean by consciousness.

I'm experiencing something....whether it be simulation, hallucination, sensory perception, etc. Is that what you mean by "consciousness"? The experiences themselves?

This agreement must then be on the basis of 'direct experience' .. whether its well supported, or not(?)
I dunno ..(?)

I don't know what you're experiencing though. I wish I could describe that in a way that isn't just going to sound like a dodge....but I'll try despite probably failing.

You say you experience anger....I say I experience anger.

Whatever you're labeling anger may not even be remotely close to what I label anger. So it goes for many extremely abstract concepts....including consciousness. I'm experiencing something. I've got enough reason to believe you do too.

Is that fair?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"physical model of mind"?

Remember the evidence I mentioned earlier?

Why should we presume such a thing,

Evidence.

when such theories require unnecessary extravagencies and ad hoc adjustments?

Not sure what you're suggesting...that because it's more difficult to understand than "you have a soul" we should ignore the evidence?

You're fine with believing whatever is easiest....please do.

Common sense is the first rule of epistemics

Shame nobody thought of that.

If a position leads to believing something that makes no real sense, then it lkely is a false belief.

Or you've reached the upper limits of your understanding and have inserted whatever explanation you can understand.

And physicalist metaphysics lead to absurd conclusions

Nobody cares. Again, no physicalists here tmk.

Never said converses were in play.

The problem is seen as an open problem among theorists of mind,

Philosophers.

Except your epistemics are not common sense,

Oh ok. Well I'll agree they aren't as common as I'd hope.

because you begin with an assumption about external reality

Right. It does seem the right place to begin....unless you want to fall down the thinking about thinking problem.

that eventually requires elimination of the subjective if it is taken on a consistent basis.

Why? Subjective "truth" cannot be demonstrated or proven....tested is even very difficult in most ways.

Epistemics begins with common sense,

Sure. Common sense begins with the notion that if you wish to pursue knowledge of a subject, perhaps start at the beginning of it. Try reading those philosophy books you suggested.

Otherwise, you might make wild unfounded assumptions that nobody cares about and everyone disagrees with.

as anything that can be held true in our everyday experiences can be accepted until undermined.

If you want to trust the reported experiences of others....be my guest.

I'm not here to tell you how to think. You've got common sense going for you.

But there are certainly more rules to epistemics than just that.

Ok.

My point in this thread was not to convince those who are sold out to physicalist metaphysics to the point where they can no longer even see that their assumptions are metaphysical,

I've honestly got no idea what the reason why you made the thread was.

Literally, I tried to cut to the point in my first post. I think I asked if this was still a real problem for anyone. I wasn't being flippant....I don't think it is.

it was to demonstrate that the "naturalist" claim that they make no impositions on nature is false.

Ok.

If it were true, there would be no pushback about leaving the closure principle defined as closure on the natural.

Uh huh...real quick question...

If no one needs to consider the propositions true....what's the problem?

You're talking about pushback as if anyone is defending those proposals other than you....before you rewrite them.

Because if physical closure were true, closure on the natural would lead to the conclusion of physical closure.

If I recall correctly, you never defined natural....and the vague answer you gave was far less clear than physical...which you complained was vague and meaningless.

If you prefer the term natural to physical I bet we're all ok with that. Enjoy.

So why are people who deny having metaphysics

Do you mean deny having epistemology?

Metaphysics is a group of philosophical topics....broadly.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Epistemology is about possible ways towards truth, belief, what justified these things (as if that matters).

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most people have multiple epistemological models they follow, unknowingly, based on various circumstances....I just happen to have considered when it's appropriate to change epistemological views based on different types of evidence. If you're asking about a first principle or starting point of truth...I don't see how to avoid the belief of an objective reality. It's not clear what we would be discussing without it....or what we could say is true apart from dogma.

so offended by the notion of adopting a metaphysically neutral language and allowing the chips to fall where they may?

I'll ask if I see anyone who ever claims to be a physicalist. I'll say "Hey physicalist, what's wrong with using the term natural instead of physical and allowing the natural chips to naturally fall where they naturally may?"

If I get any answer...I'll be sure to inform you.

 

[SelfSim]

Sorry....when you asked if I considered my own consciousness "well supported" I thought you were asking if I considered my own conscious experiences as "well supported evidence".

If you're literally just asking me about my own consciousness....supported by what exactly? I'm the only one who can experience it.
...
We don't actually need to agree with this.

It really depends upon what exactly you mean by consciousness.

I'm experiencing something....whether it be simulation, hallucination, sensory perception, etc. Is that what you mean by "consciousness"? The experiences themselves?

I don't believe there is any objective definition for 'what consciousness is'.

I don't know what you're experiencing though. I wish I could describe that in a way that isn't just going to sound like a dodge....but I'll try despite probably failing.

You say you experience anger....I say I experience anger.

Whatever you're labeling anger may not even be remotely close to what I label anger. So it goes for many extremely abstract concepts....including consciousness. I'm experiencing something. I've got enough reason to believe you do too.

Is that fair?

I guess my point is that consciousness, (whatever that may be), is a product of the human brain. Whatever it is, we all say we have it and therefore, it must exist. This process is self-analysis, followed by a conclusion reached by a collective of alike minds, defining their most basic mental experience/process and concluding 'it must therefore exist'. The conclusion is very "well supported".

This point is in response to what you posted there before:

Most people don't consider the musings of a philosopher based upon their "direct experience" or more properly....their ability to self analyze their own mental processes as "well supported".

 

[Fervent]

Remember the evidence I mentioned earlier?




Evidence.

None of the evdence suggests a good explanaton of why there is a qualitative difference between physical structures and mental phenomena. There is, at present, no clear single physical model of the mind. The existence of physical correlates doesn't suggest supervenience, and the causal exclusion problem is one raised as a challenge to non-reductionist theories. There is an insistence that the model be physical, but "explanations" tend more to attempt to explain it away through ad hoc additions to the theories involved.

Not sure what you're suggesting...that because it's more difficult to understand than "you have a soul" we should ignore the evidence?

You're fine with believing whatever is easiest....please do.




Shame nobody thought of that.




Or you've reached the upper limits of your understanding and have inserted whatever explanation you can understand.




Nobody cares. Again, no physicalists here tmk.




Philosophers.



Oh ok. Well I'll agree they aren't as common as I'd hope.



Right. It does seem the right place to begin....unless you want to fall down the thinking about thinking problem.



Why? Subjective "truth" cannot be demonstrated or proven....tested is even very difficult in most ways.




Sure. Common sense begins with the notion that if you wish to pursue knowledge of a subject, perhaps start at the beginning of it. Try reading those philosophy books you suggested.

Otherwise, you might make wild unfounded assumptions that nobody cares about and everyone disagrees with.



If you want to trust the reported experiences of others....be my guest.

I'm not here to tell you how to think. You've got common sense going for you.




Ok.



I've honestly got no idea what the reason why you made the thread was.

Literally, I tried to cut to the point in my first post. I think I asked if this was still a real problem for anyone. I wasn't being flippant....I don't think it is.




Ok.



Uh huh...real quick question...

None of this is worth addressing.

If no one needs to consider the propositions true....what's the problem?

You don't understand what I'm saying when I say its not a true/false issue. These are all things which are prima facie true, experientiially basic statements. The only reason to challenge them is under a metaphyisical prior.

You're talking about pushback as if anyone is defending those proposals other than you....before you rewrite them.

It's not the proposals that I'm talking about. There is clearly a metaphysical bias among the people who are arguing against what I've said, and the arguments do not substantiively address the issue I've raised.

If I recall correctly, you never defined natural....and the vague answer you gave was far less clear than physical...which you complained was vague and meaningless.

If you prefer the term natural to physical I bet we're all ok with that. Enjoy.

Then why so many replies to me aiming to preserve the physicalist language?

Do you mean deny having epistemology?

No, a metaphysical understanding is unavoidable. We either critically assess it, or we adopt it passively. Any working understanding requires a metaphysical understanding.

Metaphysics is a group of philosophical topics....broadly.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's notions of what things are at base. Nothing more, nothing less.

Epistemology is about possible ways towards truth, belief, what justified these things (as if that matters).

And what I am objecting to is a metaphysical understanding...which many adopt and then deny having any in order to avoid providing a defense.

Epistemology - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Most people have multiple epistemological models they follow, unknowingly, based on various circumstances....I just happen to have considered when it's appropriate to change epistemological views based on different types of evidence. If you're asking about a first principle or starting point of truth...I don't see how to avoid the belief of an objective reality. It's not clear what we would be discussing without it....or what we could say is true apart from dogma.

Yes, there are levels of epistemics. But what my procedures were aimed at was highlighting a metaphysic that many deceive themselves about.

I'll ask if I see anyone who ever claims to be a physicalist. I'll say "Hey physicalist, what's wrong with using the term natural instead of physical and allowing the natural chips to naturally fall where they naturally may?"

So then what about my post do you find objectionable?

If I get any answer...I'll be sure to inform you.

Considering a lot of the statements you've made in this thread, you're the kid with crumbs on his face denying that he ate the cookie. What metaphysics, right?

 

[SelfSim]

If you're asking about a first principle or starting point of truth...I don't see how to avoid the belief of an objective reality. It's not clear what we would be discussing without it....

Interestingly, whether we believe it or not, the belief there, is completely irrelevant when doing science. It never gets tested because its a belief.
So what's clear then, is that we are discussing our perceptions and objectifying models we form from them.
What may/may not be the source of all that, is not worthwhile rambling about.
We are exploring our minds via our in-common perceptions, which happen because of our in-common brain type.

Its like everyone is soo obsessed with the source (or cause) and yet, at the end of the day, that is completely irrelevant, (ie: other than those people obsessed with philosophical musings and never ending navel-gazing).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't believe there is any objective definition for 'what consciousness is'.

Then it's a tough one to answer. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest it cannot be supported by anyone but me...and I'm a bit too aware of the problems with perception of objective reality to imagine that far greater problems don't exist when trying to perceive my own subjective reality from the perspective of my own subjective reality.

I guess my point is that consciousness, (whatever that may be), is a product of the human brain.

Agreed....and it's interplay with various stimuli.

Whatever it is, we all say we have it and therefore, it must exist.

The logical fallacy here is that large agreement = truth. We are unsure what we agree upon in regards to what consciousness is, and we don't know what others experience.

This process is self-analysis,

Sure...and I don't know if you agree, but generally, people are awful at this.

followed by a conclusion reached by a collective of alike minds,

Behavior tends to be a stronger indicator of cognitive processes than words.

The split brain experiments showed our minds will literally invent causes that never happened, form memories about them, and we are utterly convinced they happened.

Extreme sensory deprivation is described by hallucinagen enthusiasts as the most vivid and bizarre experience possible. Without sensory information, it only takes a short while for our minds to start hearing things it does hear, seeing things it doesn't see, and it's an experience that increases in intensity over time.

Paradoxical undressing involves someone freezing to death, suddenly becoming extremely hot, removing their clothes and running for it. It's as if some subconscious level changes your perception so wildly it causes you to attempt to escape the freezing conditions.

The life flashing before someone's eyes is a commonly reported experience...typically in a near death situation....and assumed to be an extreme adrenaline injection to slow down time perception and categorically scan memories for a similar situation wherein a survival method exists.

I've personally experienced tunnel vision and auditory exclusion. These are reactions to imminent dangers. Probably an evolutionary hold over....back when intense focus on a single threat was far more common than multiple threats.

Beyond that...hypnosis, battle trance, and these all exist without speaking of any illness or disorder.

What I'm saying is....the fact that your mind can be induced into altered states surgically, chemically, and ritualistically....suggests the range of possibilities is typically larger than most would understand in any meaningful way.

defining their most basic mental experience/process and concluding 'it must therefore exist'. The conclusion is very "well supported".

Again...supported by what?

This point is in response to what you posted there before:

I can certainly be wrong about what most people think....however, I wouldn't alter the rest easily.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"physical model of mind"? Why should we presume such a thing, when such theories require unnecessary extravagencies and ad hoc adjustments?

I didn't presume one. I commented on your caricature of one as quantum mechanical (particles). I'm not a neuroscientist, so I don't know exactly how they form models of brain/mind activity, though I am pretty sure it involves action at the neuron/synapse level, and not lower levels.

Common sense is the first rule of epistemics, though that's not where it ends. If a position leads to believing something that makes no real sense, then it lkely is a false belief.

Wow, that's a really bad idea. Much of science is built to learn how things work and explain things where "common sense" is wrong.

And physicalist metaphysics lead to absurd conclusions when we begin discussing issues of the mind and body. There is no reason for elaborate theories to explain away mind as if it is just some physical thing despite having no similarities. Your metaphysics is leading your epistemics.

My "metaphysics" is about doing physics. I work out from there.

Never said converses were in play.

They why do you take my rejection of the claim "mental is not physical" as a claim of the opposite. My problem is that the "premises" in your OP are not quite what you claim they are.

The problem is seen as an open problem among theorists of mind, with a variety of responses none of which is able to extend to a consensus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not bothered, I find it rather amusing how blinded you are to your metaphysics. A simple question, if you're not imposing an understanding onto reality why do you resist adjusting the closure principle so that the language is metaphysically neutral? If your only concern is employing a scientific method of modeling reality, why do you seem offended by the proposition of dropping "physical" from our lexicon and letting natural causes just be natural causes?

Because you refuse to specify why replacing "physicalist" metaphysics with "naturalist" metaphysics is any real change.

 

[Fervent]

Because you refuse to specify why replacing "physicalist" metaphysics with "naturalist" metaphysics is any real change.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the change doesn't mean it isn't significant. Switching the language means we no longer need to insert ad hoc bits into theories to explain away the distinctness of mental and physical. If there isn't a change, then why do you seem to object to making a change of the language? It seems it would make no difference, yet here you are seeming to object.

 

[SelfSim]

Agreed....and it's interplay with various stimuli.

Agreed .. its a consistent model in science.

The logical fallacy here is that large agreement = truth. We are unsure what we agree upon in regards to what consciousness is, and we don't know what others experience.

The only 'truth' I can see there comes from the observation of what it took for consciousness to become real, (or: 'exists' or:' is').
Reality is created by human minds. Any model of reality we care to form, should include this possibility and not deny it on the basis of its exceptions at the limits.

Sure...and I don't know if you agree, but generally, people are awful at this.

I understand your meaning there .. but not all people are awful at this.
(Otherwise: 'awful' loses its meaning).

Behavior tends to be a stronger indicator of cognitive processes than words.

The split brain experiments showed our minds will literally invent causes that never happened, form memories about them, and we are utterly convinced they happened.

Extreme sensory deprivation is described by hallucinagen enthusiasts as the most vivid and bizarre experience possible. Without sensory information, it only takes a short while for our minds to start hearing things it does hear, seeing things it doesn't see, and it's an experience that increases in intensity over time.

Paradoxical undressing involves someone freezing to death, suddenly becoming extremely hot, removing their clothes and running for it. It's as if some subconscious level changes your perception so wildly it causes you to attempt to escape the freezing conditions.

The life flashing before someone's eyes is a commonly reported experience...typically in a near death situation....and assumed to be an extreme adrenaline injection to slow down time perception and categorically scan memories for a similar situation wherein a survival method exists.

I've personally experienced tunnel vision and auditory exclusion. These are reactions to imminent dangers. Probably an evolutionary hold over....back when intense focus on a single threat was far more common than multiple threats.

Beyond that...hypnosis, battle trance, and these all exist without speaking of any illness or disorder.

What I'm saying is....the fact that your mind can be induced into altered states surgically, chemically, and ritualistically....suggests the range of possibilities is typically larger than most would understand in any meaningful way.

I agree that there is a range of deviation from the typical behaviours there, but using that observation to counteract the typical or normal cognitive response of using language, (and its meanings), is unsupportable on a frequency of usage basis, IMO(?)
Any model selected on a usefulness basis should include both, whilst noticing what's behind both ie: a (healthy) human mind/brain processes.

Again...supported by what?

The observation and subsequent agreement on sufficiency in meeting a workable meaning for 'it exists'.
The recognition that contrary proposition is unworkable.
(Such agreement is contigent and subject to change. There is no truth in it).

I can certainly be wrong about what most people think....however, I wouldn't alter the rest easily.

Fair enough .. (your choice).

 

[SelfSim]

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the change doesn't mean it isn't significant. Switching the language means we no longer need to insert ad hoc bits into theories to explain away the distinctness of mental and physical.

Can you give an example of one such 'ad hoc bit'?

 

[Fervent]

Can you give an example of one such 'ad hoc bit'?

Defining mental "events" as physical processes. There are at least 3 ad hoc issues with such a move. What those opposing my OP don't seem to understand is the propositions aren't theoretical objects, they're the empirical "facts" that theories of mind need to explain.

 

[SelfSim]

Defining mental "events" as physical processes. There are at least 3 ad hoc issues with such a move. What those opposing my OP don't seem to understand is the propositions aren't theoretical objects, they're the empirical "facts" that theories of mind need to explain.

You mean like say, defining 'time 'as being what a clock reads or, defining 'north' as being where a compass points?
You don't like those being defined in physical ways?