Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

You mean like say, defining 'time 'as being what a clock reads or, defining 'north' as being where a compass points?

The case is a little different when we're talking about external realities. There is no qualitatve difference beng expessed when we are locating such things.

You don't like those being defined in physical ways?

Neither of those things presents qualitative differences from common sense ideas about physical. The fact that there is a mind-body problem estabilishes we're talking about qualitative differences. Mind has distinct properties, and doesn't seem to have an overlap with physical properties. So defining mental causation as "events" that are "physical" either stretches physical to the point where it conveys nothing of significance, or there is a metaphysical understanding being iimposed upon the definition. Defining mental in terms of physical is a purely ad hoc move to explain away, rather than actually explain, mental phenomena.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the change doesn't mean it isn't significant.

It's really not a matter of acknowledgement. It is a matter of understanding. As I have stated multiple times, I don't see anything particularly significant in difference between "physical" and "natural". I am willing to consider or even accept the difference you claim, but I don't understand it and you seem unwilling to explain what is different.

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 you can at least explain what you think changes in the "causal exclusion problem" with the difference then we could talk about if I (or others on the thread) agree with your conclusions. Perhaps it is a brilliant solution. Perhaps it is useless. I can't say because I don't understand the claimed difference. I don't study philosophy.

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.

I object because it looks like you are playing word games to obtain a great rhetorical victory. I'm not fond of chicanery.

 

[Fervent]

It's really not a matter of acknowledgement. It is a matter of understanding. As I have stated multiple times, I don't see anything particularly significant in difference between "physical" and "natural". I am willing to consider or even accept the difference you claim, but I don't understand it and you seem unwilling to explain what is different.

Just because you're blind to the difference, doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The problem is you have blinded yourself to the fact that you have a metaphysical understanding and you take it to be naive reality.

If you can at least explain what you think changes in the "causal exclusion problem" with the difference then we could talk about if I (or others on the thread) agree with your conclusions. Perhaps it is a brilliant solution. Perhaps it is useless. I can't say because I don't understand the claimed difference. I don't study philosophy.

The change is pretty simple. The conflict in the propositions, which are basic "facts" that theories of mind need to account for, goes away by removing a hypothetical metaphysical understanding of nature. There is no need for ad hoc definitions or tinkering with the proposiitons in any ad hoc fashion to maintain that mental causation isn't its own category. It's addition by subtraction.

I object because it looks like you are playing word games to obtain a great rhetorical victory. I'm not fond of chicanery.

You object because you require there be no difference for some likely emotional reason. Letting go of the notion that they are synonomous means you have to defend your beliefs in philosophic terms rather than just smuggling them into science. If you truly saw them as identical, the change wouldn't make a difference and there would be no reason for you to object.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just because you're blind to the difference, doesn't mean there isn't a difference. The problem is you have blinded yourself to the fact that you have a metaphysical understanding and you take it to be naive reality.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this. This is NOT about my 'blindness'. I WANT to properly discuss your solution to the problem given in the OP, but I can't because I don't understand the difference. It is my untrained understanding of philosoophy that doesn't grasp the claim of difference between "physical" and "natural", certainly not any difference that would matter to your claimed solution. When I ask for clarification, I don't get answers, I get accusations of be fixed in my metaphysics.

At this point it looks like a dodge on your part. I'm no sure what you are trying to avoid. It make me think the whole solution is not what you claim it is.

 

[Fervent]

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you this. This is NOT about my 'blindness'. I WANT to properly discuss your solution to the problem given in the OP, but I can't because I don't understand the difference. It is my untrained understanding of philosoophy that doesn't grasp the claim of difference between "physical" and "natural", certainly not any difference that would matter to your claimed solution. When I ask for clarification, I don't get answers, I get accusations of be fixed in my metaphysics.

To elaborate on the difference would require metaphysical speculation, something neither of us really cares to do beyond what is necessary. The point of this exercise is to challenge the idea that we just need more data in order to solve the various mind-body problems that exist and explain how mental causes such as intentional action of conscious agents are simply expressions of physical structures. The four propositions I have presented within the problem aren't theories to believe in or disbelieve in, they are things that are fair to take as a given from basic, ordinary experience. The problem is that as stated there is an apparent conflict within the 4 propositions. Most theories attempt to address one of the two terms involving "mental" in an insistence upon a notion that everything that is causally effective must in some way depend on the physical, either by directly being physical or by supervening upon the physical. What I have done is to look at the terms themselves and see if we can solve the conflict by restating one of the terms as two terms without altering the term itself in order to remove an assumption from the definition.

At this point it looks like a dodge on your part. I'm no sure what you are trying to avoid. It make me think the whole solution is not what you claim it is.

There's no dodge, though I can appreciate why you would have trouble understanding what I've done because your current paradigm they are basically synonyms. The point of this thread isn't to propose a theory to explain the observations, but to highlight the...faith...involved in holding out for a physical theory that fully explains consciousness. It's to raise the suspicion that maybe we need to begin examining theories that take seriously the uniqueness of mental causation as somehow efficacious on its own.

 

[SelfSim]

The case is a little different when we're talking about external realities. There is no qualitatve difference beng expessed when we are locating such things.

Who said anything about 'external realities' then? Not me!?
I don't need to refer to 'natural' and I'm not 'locating' anything there either.
I'm defining what 'time' and 'north' mean.

Neither of those things presents qualitative differences from common sense ideas about physical. The fact that there is a mind-body problem estabilishes we're talking about qualitative differences. Mind has distinct properties, and doesn't seem to have an overlap with physical properties.

I used my mind to conceive both 'time' and 'north' before I cited those examples of what I'd mean by those terms.
I can point to what I mean once I defined them that way.
The overlap there, is I demonstrably used my mind to realise both 'time' and 'north'.

How I choose to group those definitions is up to me and is not necessarily ad hoc.
I could have defined time as being unease I experience whilst watching a clock.
The so-called 'mental' and 'physical' are interchangeable .. depending on my purpose. There are qualitative differences arising there, depending on what processes I use to satisfy that purpose.
Either way, my mind is what realises them .. and never some 'thing' independent from it.

So defining mental causation as "events" that are "physical" either stretches physical to the point where it conveys nothing of significance, or there is a metaphysical understanding being iimposed upon the definition. Defining mental in terms of physical is a purely ad hoc move to explain away, rather than actually explain, mental phenomena.

Nope .. there may be other significant purposes which you're choosing to ignore there, via your meaning of your term 'metaphysical' .. I don't know what I don't know, however.

 

[Fervent]

Who said anything about 'external realities' then? Not me!?
I don't need to refer to 'natural' and I'm not 'locating' anything there either.
I'm defining what 'time' and 'north' mean.

That's not really defining them, though. Do you think that clocks give rise to time, or merely report on it? The difference is significant, one is a matter of location/recognition and the other a matter of ontology.

I used my mind to conceive both 'time' and 'north' before I cited those examples of what I'd mean by those terms.
I can point to what I mean once I defined them that way.
The overlap there, is I demonstrably used my mind to realise both 'time' and 'north'.

you merely found one way to locate and track them, not define what they are made of. What this line of argument shows is that you don't have a basic understanding of the logical structure I have employed.

How I choose to group those definitions is up to me and is not necessarily ad hoc.
I could have defined time as being unease I experience whilst watching a clock.
The so-called 'mental' and 'physical' are interchangeable .. depending on my purpose. There are qualitative differences arising there, depending on what processes I use to satisfy that purpose.
Either way, my mind is what realises them .. and never some 'thing' independent from it.

There's a difference between ad hoc definitions to prevent an understanding from being falsified(which defining mental "events" as "physical" "events" seems to aim to do) and defining something ostensively(by pointing at an example or exanples of it). You're simply conflating means of defining things and treating two different meanings as the same thing.

Nope .. there may be other significant purposes which you're choosing to ignore there, via your meaning of your term 'metaphysical' .. I don't know what I don't know, however.

The only thng that matters is whether or not in separating the closure principle into two terms instead of one did violence to the closure principle. Just because we "can" redefine two of the propositions so that it has the appearance of preserving "physical" doesn't mean the redefinition is legitimate and not simply an ad hoc adjustment.

 

[SelfSim]

The problem is that as stated there is an apparent conflict within the 4 propositions. Most theories attempt to address one of the two terms involving "mental" in an insistence upon a notion that everything that is causally effective must in some way depend on the physical, either by directly being physical or by supervening upon the physical. What I have done is to look at the terms themselves and see if we can solve the conflict by restating one of the terms as two terms without altering the term itself in order to remove an assumption from the definition.

It might remove an assumption from the definition .. but it may also add in others. If that's just another fancy way of saying: 'let's keep an open mind about causes' and that's what this thread has been all about, I don't think anyone's gonna object to that(?)

There's no dodge, though I can appreciate why you would have trouble understanding what I've done because your current paradigm they are basically synonyms. The point of this thread isn't to propose a theory to explain the observations, but to highlight the...faith...involved in holding out for a physical theory that fully explains consciousness. It's to raise the suspicion that maybe we need to begin examining theories that take seriously the uniqueness of mental causation as somehow efficacious on its own.

You mean like the observer effect in physics?

 

[Fervent]

It might remove an assumption from the definition .. but it may also add in others. If that's just another fancy way of saying: 'let's keep an open mind about causes' and that's what this thread has been all about, I don't think anyone's gonna object to that(?)

What has been added? If there is something I have added to the picture, then I must have done violence to the causal principle...so what violence have I done? If no violence has been done, how did I add by subtracting unless there is a real difference?

You mean like the observer effect in physics?

Not quite, the observor effect tends to be misconstrued since under the Copenhagen interpretation the "observor" isn't necessarily conscious. Though that's another kettle of fish to fry.

 

[SelfSim]

What has been added? If there is something I have added to the picture, then I must have done violence to the causal principle...so what violence have I done? If no violence has been done, how did I add by subtracting unless there is a real difference?

Well I think with your explicitly referencing naturalism, the following is now included:

• Naturalism (philosophy), the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe
  • Humanistic naturalism, a branch of philosophical naturalism
  • Liberal naturalism, a heterodox form of philosophical naturalism
  • Metaphysical naturalism, a philosophical basis for science
  • Religious naturalism, combines a naturalist worldview with ideals associated with many religions
  • Spiritual naturalism, combines a naturalist approach to spiritual ways of looking at the world
• Ethical naturalism, or moral naturalism
• Dialectical naturalism, a term coined by Murray Bookchin
• Political naturalism, a belief that there is a natural law

Don't ask me what all that stuff's about .. because it certainly isn't familiar to me, when coming from from a physical science perspective!

Not quite, the observor effect tends to be misconstrued since under the Copenhagen interpretation the "observor" isn't necessarily conscious. Though that's another kettle of fish to fry.

I'm yet to see an observer that doesn't complete observations entirely indepedently from consciousness.
Instruments like photon detectors may not look to be conscious (and I'd have to concur partially with that). In my world, an observation is incomplete until a conscious mind has actually seen that data. Photon detectors have also been invented by human minds, in order for our minds to make sense for us in the spectral regions beyond our limited visual range .. but they have still been designed to do so, by conscious minds. They are far from being entities completely independent from the evidence of our minds' fingerprints having been all over them.

Artificial Intelligence is also right on that border's edge there too, methinks(?)

 

[Fervent]

Well I think with your explicitly referencing naturalism, the following is now included:

• Naturalism (philosophy), the idea that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe
  • Humanistic naturalism, a branch of philosophical naturalism
  • Liberal naturalism, a heterodox form of philosophical naturalism
  • Metaphysical naturalism, a philosophical basis for science
  • Religious naturalism, combines a naturalist worldview with ideals associated with many religions
  • Spiritual naturalism, combines a naturalist approach to spiritual ways of looking at the world
• Ethical naturalism, or moral naturalism
• Dialectical naturalism, a term coined by Murray Bookchin
• Political naturalism, a belief that there is a natural law

Don't ask me what all that stuff's about .. because it certainly isn't familiar to me, when coming from from a physical science perspective!

There's certainly a lot of ink spilled attempting to define it, but all I'm speaking of is sticking with tautological defiinitions. That is to say, defiining it as an identity. Nature is nature, a=a. If there is any "naturalism" I am interested in, it's a methodological naturalism. Which is more about epistemological commitments than a genuine philosophical agreement.

I'm yet to see an observer that doesn't complete observations entirely indepedently from consciousness.
Instruments like photon detectors may not look to be conscious (and I'd have to concur partially with that). In my world, an observation is incomplete until a conscious mind has actually seen that data. Photon detectors have also been invented by human minds, in order for our minds to make sense for us in the spectral regions beyond our limited visual range .. but they have still been designed to do so, by conscious minds.

That's basically what I meant by another kettle of fish, but within CI there's not a specification that the "observor" is conscious. It's a mathematical construct, not a conceptual one.

Artificial Intelligence is also right on that border's edge there, methinks(?)

I'd say natural intelliigence has a long way to go before we start worrying about an artificial variety.

 

[SelfSim]

There's certainly a lot of ink spilled attempting to define it, but all I'm speaking of is sticking with tautological defiinitions. That is to say, defiining it as an identity. Nature is nature, a=a. If there is any "naturalism" I am interested in, it's a methodological naturalism. Which is more about epistemological commitments than a genuine philosophical agreement.

That's basically what I meant by another kettle of fish, but within CI there's not a specification that the "observor" is conscious. It's a mathematical construct, not a conceptual one.

I'd say natural intelliigence has a long way to go before we start worrying about an artificial variety.

PS: Apologies .. I added more words to my previous post .. only to aid in clarifying what's going on in my mind at the moment .. It maybe time for me to rest and get outside ..

 

[Ana the Ist]

None of the evdence suggests a good explanaton of why there is a qualitative difference between physical structures and mental phenomena.

Perhaps there isn't. You'll notice I included that in my list of solutions.

None of this is worth addressing.

Tell me about it.

You don't understand what I'm saying when I say its not a true/false issue.

You describe it as a problem....

Yet you cannot explain what the problem is.

That's because, and I'm certain you know this, you'd need to claim these propositions true for there to be any problem with them.

Otherwise we can simply discard them....they aren't true and therefore the problem they describe isn't a problem.

These are all things which are prima facie true, experientiially basic statements.

So you want people to consider these true?

Then be impressed with your "solution" which is really just obfuscation.

And ignore the fact that you logically broke the law of identity in your solution.

Is that about it?

It's not the proposals that I'm talking about. There is clearly a metaphysical bias

Do you mean epistemological bias?

What metaphysical bias do you think people have?

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

I was under the impression that you regarded these as true statements.

No, a metaphysical understanding is unavoidable.

Uh huh.

We either critically assess it, or we adopt it passively.

Uh huh.

Any working understanding requires a metaphysical understanding.

Ok...then what metaphysical "understanding" do you imagine you're arguing with?

I disagree entirely btw....before you can hope to discuss reality you must have a basis for "truth" and "belief".

Epistemological considerations must come first but hey...since you're representing dogma anyway, that's not surprising that you skipped past truth.

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

It's a lot more than that.

And what I am objecting to is a metaphysical understanding.

Which is?

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

Again since you haven't dealt with truth first (epistemological grounds) I don't really care about who you think is deceiving themselves. You would need a means of discovering truth to make such a claim....and they are few, difficult, and easy to forget.

How do you know truth? What's your epistemological basis for prima facie claims of truth or claims about people deceiving themselves?

Is it.....revelation? Faith?

Let's hear your method of discovering truth before you judge anyone else.

So then what about my post do you find objectionable?

Go back and read my posts....in sequence.

I cut right to the point as I see it almost every time. I honestly ask if this is still a real problem anyone considers. I then point out that I don't see the problem. I then point out that I don't see anything in your solution but semantic word games. I then try to figure out what or who it is you believe you're arguing against and why you refuse to elaborate on the problem.

I now have my answers....I'm fairly certain of it.

I could, if you prefer, go back and point out your repeated insistence upon your own logical analysis of these propositions. That stuck out. You even insisted that your answer was grounded on the laws of identity and non-contradiction. I then asked you to describe the law of identity as best as you understand it.

You didn't do that. The reason is pretty obvious....you either realized that you broke it or read it for the first time. You haven't claimed to be logically analyzing anything since. Did you think I missed that? No.

I understand why you're upset with me but really....you shouldn't be. I'm sure at least one poster here knows how insulting and condescending I can get (looking at you @Hans Blaster) so please....in all sincerity, try to understand that from my very first post all I've done is either try to understand why you considered this a problem or understand why you believed you had solved it. To me...neither the problem nor your solution are valid or true.

What metaphysics, right?

If you want to believe that all metaphysics is can be expressed in the question "what are things at base"? that's fine...I can work with that.

Do you want to start there? Okie dokie.

I'll still need to know what method or path to truth you follow. Please understand that if it's worthless in my eyes...either because you'll never have any means of convincing me or you are emotionally attached to ancient explanations of reality....we don't have to continue.

So what epistemological grounds are you going to follow when discovering what things are at base?

How do you decide what is true?

 

[Fervent]

Perhaps there isn't. You'll notice I included that in my list of solutions.



Tell me about it.




You describe it as a problem....

Yet you cannot explain what the problem is.

That's because, and I'm certain you know this, you'd need to claim these propositions true for there to be any problem with them.

Otherwise we can simply discard them....they aren't true and therefore the problem they describe isn't a problem.

The problem has been explained. Those 4 propositions are "facts" that come from basic experience, but when all 4 are combined present a contradiction. That's the problem, and it's received a great deal of attention and attempted solutions within the literature of theories of mind, none of which are clear stand outs. Your failure to understand is a comprehension issue on your part, not a failure of the explanation or the problem not existing.

So you want people to consider these true?

True or false isn't really relevant, because these are experiential impressions. They're basic propositions, not theories.

Then be impressed with your "solution" which is really just obfuscation.

There's no obfuscation, just the removal of a metaphysical hypothesis about what "natural" means.

And ignore the fact that you logically broke the law of identity in your solution.

How did I break the law of identity?

Is that about it?




Do you mean epistemological bias?

What metaphysical bias do you think people have?

"No metaphysics in my physics" and a failure to recognize that physicalism is synthetic to natural and cannot be presumed true.

I was under the impression that you regarded these as true statements.

Basic experiences, not theoretical objects. The facts that theories are meant to explain.

Uh huh.



Uh huh.




Ok...then what metaphysical "understanding" do you imagine you're arguing with?

The one that I have removed from the set of propositions, namely "natural causes are physical causes."

I disagree entirely btw....before you can hope to discuss reality you must have a basis for "truth" and "belief".

To not talk at cross purposes, possibly. Though we can circumscribe discussion through certain forms of argument such as reductio ad absurdem or semantic incoherence. Though of course biases and emotions often get in the way of truly constructive dialogue.

Epistemological considerations must come first but hey...since you're representing dogma anyway, that's not surprising that you skipped past truth.

I've said nothing of dogma, and I am fully concerned with Truth. It just seems to me that many seem to prefer an agreed upon lie, so long as there is a consensus.

It's a lot more than that.

Not really, metaphysics is just an understanding of fundamental necessities.

Which is?

The one I removed from the set of propositions. The one that seems to be defended by ad hoc definitions.

Again since you haven't dealt with truth first (epistemological grounds) I don't really care about who you think is deceiving themselves. You would need a means of discovering truth to make such a claim....and they are few, difficult, and easy to forget.

The epistemological grounding is the basic experience. These propositions aren't theoretical, they are observed facts that need theoretical explanation. Speaking of them in terms of "true" or "false" would be like speaking of taste or smell as "true" or "false". It's categorically wrong.

How do you know truth? What's your epistemological basis for prima facie claims of truth or claims about people deceiving themselves?

I know Truth because I didn't settle until I got to the bottom of the rabbit hole and stared it in the Face. My basis for saying people are deceiving themselves is I see it in operation, the shell games that people play to hide the assumptions they make about reality that masquerade as knowledge. Like a piece of fine jewelry, the fakes are easy to spot once you've identified the genuine article.

Is it.....revelation? Faith?

I'd answer this, but it would likely be pearls before swine.

Let's hear your method of discovering truth before you judge anyone else.

Many roads, many roads. Not one method. Many roads.

Go back and read my posts....in sequence.

I cut right to the point as I see it almost every time. I honestly ask if this is still a real problem anyone considers. I then point out that I don't see the problem. I then point out that I don't see anything in your solution but semantic word games. I then try to figure out what or who it is you believe you're arguing against and why you refuse to elaborate on the problem.

You don't see the problem because you've accepted ad hoc solutions by defining the problem away arbitrarily.

I now have my answers....I'm fairly certain of it.

I could, if you prefer, go back and point out your repeated insistence upon your own logical analysis of these propositions. That stuck out. You even insisted that your answer was grounded on the laws of identity and non-contradiction. I then asked you to describe the law of identity as best as you understand it.

I am aware of my insistence, because ad hoc solutions don't impress me. Especially in the face of a solution that is fully appropriate and doesn't require multiiplying entities needlessly. Your solutions are ad hoc, so why do you prefer them to mine?

You didn't do that. The reason is pretty obvious....you either realized that you broke it or read it for the first time. You haven't claimed to be logically analyzing anything since. Did you think I missed that? No.

In what way did I break the law of identity? Explain.

I understand why you're upset with me but really....you shouldn't be. I'm sure at least one poster here knows how insulting and condescending I can get (looking at you @Hans Blaster) so please....in all sincerity, try to understand that from my very first post all I've done is either try to understand why you considered this a problem or understand why you believed you had solved it. To me...neither the problem nor your solution are valid or true.

I'm not upset with you, not in the least. I don't feel it necessary to explain why it's a problem since the variety of literature out there attempting to address it with no clear standout should make it evident it is still a problem. And my solution is preferable to other solutions because it doesn't require elegant or elaborate ad hoc adjustments to whatever theory is derived.

If you want to believe that all metaphysics is can be expressed in the question "what are things at base"? that's fine...I can work with that.

Do you want to start there? Okie dokie.

I'll still need to know what method or path to truth you follow. Please understand that if it's worthless in my eyes...either because you'll never have any means of convincing me or you are emotionally attached to ancient explanations of reality....we don't have to continue.

If I were not a believer in Christ, I would be a philosophical skeptic or epistemic nihilist. The world is not enough, because I cannot arrive at a self-sufficient world without cutting off my epistemic legs. My basis for truth comes from learning the name of God, and that is something each person must do on their own.

So what epistemological grounds are you going to follow when discovering what things are at base?

Ordinary investigation, conjecture and falsification, hypothesis testing, modeling with as few assumptions as necessary. The difference is in the foundations, not in the roads we travel.

How do you decide what is true?

Strictly speaking, I have no idea what is true. I have a hope and a prayer, and I accomodate and incorporate challenging information into a pragmatic model of reality that I know is fundamentally flawed in some manner. I trust my reasoning faculties and sense experiences because I believe they were designed to be generally trustworthy, rather than being the result of what can only be described as chance and random collisions. Truth is something I seek, not something I possess.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interestingly, whether we believe it or not, the belief there, is completely irrelevant when doing science. It never gets tested because its a belief.

I know it may seem completely irrelevant, but without it, we'd never have developed the scientific method.

That's not the only way to figure things out...but I'm sure you'll agree that those other ways are more limited. Pure logic is nice but does little without an experiment or hypothesis. Trial and error can discover things but becomes easily lost without any chain of scientific discoveries to mark it.

All of science rests upon the notion that one day, some greek guy, decided that reality existed independently of him and only through continuous and careful observations would he be able to understand it.

Irrelevant? No. Science becomes a little dangerously arrogant when it forgets that it holds completely unjustified and unprovable beliefs.

Don't imagine that you're less of a scientist for admitting that. I've got far more respect for scientists who can.

So what's clear then, is that we are discussing our perceptions and objectifying models we form from them.

I don't know if you consider Einstein a scientist or mathematician....but he was able to make predictions about reality using nothing more than math and logic.

Aristotle, who held the same belief you don't claim to need, observed that the octopus had a reproductive tentacle...something discarded and scoffed by biologists for decades if not longer...until it was discovered to be true fairly recently.

Science took a long time to observe what a few others considered true without the scientific method to aid them. I'm not knocking science here....just making a point.

What may/may not be the source of all that, is not worthwhile rambling about.

It is worth rambling about. I have no reason to care what your perception is apart from it's consideration of objective reality. Without the belief...you may simply be a figment of my imagination.

Hard to say which is more likely.

We are exploring our minds via our in-common perceptions, which happen because of our in-common brain type.

Even Caesar understood that the most common mistake men make in regards to their thinking is to imagine other men think as they do.

I forgot the name of this particular cognitive bias, but frankly, I do recall a fair amount of scientific experiments proving it's existence.

Why does medical science do "double blind" studies? No need for an in depth explanation....just shout out the perceptual problem they seek to avoid. Hint- it rhymes with "Beseabo Beffect".

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).

I'm not fond of the thinking about thinking problem either....but at least one guy came up with an answer that all of science is founded upon.

 

[SelfSim]

I know it may seem completely irrelevant, but without it, we'd never have developed the scientific method.

That's not the only way to figure things out...but I'm sure you'll agree that those other ways are more limited. Pure logic is nice but does little without an experiment or hypothesis. Trial and error can discover things but becomes easily lost without any chain of scientific discoveries to mark it.

All of science rests upon the notion that one day, some greek guy, decided that reality existed independently of him and only through continuous and careful observations would he be able to understand it.

Irrelevant? No. Science becomes a little dangerously arrogant when it forgets that it holds completely unjustified and unprovable beliefs.

Don't imagine that you're less of a scientist for admitting that. I've got far more respect for scientists who can.

There are 'pointers' .. and that's all that needs to be said.
That's sufficient in order for science to move forward with the heavy lifting.

I don't know if you consider Einstein a scientist or mathematician....but he was able to make predictions about reality using nothing more than math and logic.

There was way more basis for what Einstein did than 'nothing more than math and logic'.

Aristotle, who held the same belief you don't claim to need, observed that the octopus had a reproductive tentacle...something discarded and scoffed by biologists for decades if not longer...until it was discovered to be true fairly recently.

Science took a long time to observe what a few others considered true without the scientific method to aid them. I'm not knocking science here....just making a point.

That's right .. science was always there in our minds .. but humans hadn't explored that part of their minds. No evidence there for any 'mind independent anything existing'.
In fact, the idea of mind independent anythings is at worst, completely nonsensical .. or at best; just a belief used as an efficient short cut for moving forward with science.

It is worth rambling about. I have no reason to care what your perception is apart from it's consideration of objective reality. Without the belief...you may simply be a figment of my imagination.

You have no concept/models or instances of other human minds, beside that of your own? That's odd.
I'd have to say that you've ignored the objective evidence supporting that they exist separately from your own .. and that would be a (testable) model you hold for them using your own mind.

Even Caesar understood that the most common mistake men make in regards to their thinking is to imagine other men think as they do.

Its an important point. There's variations across the population of thinking human minds. There's no value in denying those variations. Any useful theory of mind would likely, acknowledge and explain those observables.

I forgot the name of this particular cognitive bias, but frankly, I do recall a fair amount of scientific experiments proving it's existence.

Why does medical science do "double blind" studies? No need for an in depth explanation....just shout out the perceptual problem they seek to avoid. Hint- it rhymes with "Beseabo Beffect".

.. all part of the variations mentioned above.
The model of cognitive bias, is a very useful one.

I'm not fond of the thinking about thinking problem either....but at least one guy came up with an answer that all of science is founded upon.

Is 'an answer' there, objectively testable?
If not, it was a belief .. so let's just move on without it ..
IOW, (not directing this at yourself here): but we need to get over it .. and develop other objective models describing the role(s) the mind demonstrably plays in scientific thinking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To elaborate on the difference would require metaphysical speculation, something neither of us really cares to do beyond what is necessary.

You are correct, I do not care for more metaphysical speculation.

The point of this exercise is to challenge the idea that we just need more data in order to solve the various mind-body problems that exist and explain how mental causes such as intentional action of conscious agents are simply expressions of physical structures.

Such is not evident in the OP barring familiarity with the claimed problem.

The four propositions I have presented within the problem aren't theories to believe in or disbelieve in, they are things that are fair to take as a given from basic, ordinary experience.

In science we do not rely on basic, ordinary experience. It can be misleading.

The problem is that as stated there is an apparent conflict within the 4 propositions.

The conflict or relevance of it has not been made evident.

Most theories attempt to address one of the two terms involving "mental" in an insistence upon a notion that everything that is causally effective must in some way depend on the physical, either by directly being physical or by supervening upon the physical.

OK.

What I have done is to look at the terms themselves and see if we can solve the conflict by restating one of the terms as two terms without altering the term itself in order to remove an assumption from the definition.

Reliance on unstated or differentiated definitions appears to be nothing more than word games. That is the perception and you have done little to alleviate that impression.

There's no dodge, though I can appreciate why you would have trouble understanding what I've done because your current paradigm they are basically synonyms.

And you have utterly failed to demonstrate or even propose a difference between the two. My "paradigm" is irrelevant to that failure.

The point of this thread isn't to propose a theory to explain the observations, but to highlight the...faith...involved in holding out for a physical theory that fully explains consciousness. It's to raise the suspicion that maybe we need to begin examining theories that take seriously the uniqueness of mental causation as somehow efficacious on its own.

It sounds like it wasn't appropriate for this section (science) and should have been in the philosophy section.

 

[Fervent]

You are correct, I do not care for more metaphysical speculation.

Yeah.

Such is not evident in the OP barring familiarity with the claimed problem.

Ok

In science we do not rely on basic, ordinary experience. It can be misleading.

So somehow basic experience can be misleading, but when we start measuring suddenly our experiences are magically no longer misleading? Science begins with experiences, and there's no reason to treat measuring as any more reliable than basic experience. What you are doing is special pleading for measurements, which is rather amusing.

The conflict or relevance of it has not been made evident.

The conflict is apparent in the literature. Just because your metaphysics blind you to the problem doesn't make it go away.

OK.

Reliance on unstated or differentiated definitions appears to be nothing more than word games. That is the perception and you have done little to alleviate that impression.

There's no reliance on definitions here. This type of analysis is neutral to semantic content, which is kind of the whole point.

And you have utterly failed to demonstrate or even propose a difference between the two. My "paradigm" is irrelevant to that failure.

Only to the willfully blind.

It sounds like it wasn't appropriate for this section (science) and should have been in the philosophy section.

It's one of the points where the lines get blurry between science and philosophy. What science is and how it explains things iisn't a disembodied fact of nature, and the propositions the problem depends on are base experiences. Willful denial of the problem is just evidence of your own biases clouding your thinking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know if you consider Einstein a scientist or mathematician....but he was able to make predictions about reality using nothing more than math and logic.

Einstein was a scientist, specifically a physicist. His degrees were in physics. He published in physics journals. He went to physics conferences.

The ideas Einstein worked were about physical systems and the nature of the properties of the physical laws. Mathematics is the tool used to express these ideas and evaluate their consequences. When working on general relativity, Einstein often went to more mathematically skilled friends like Marcel Grossmann for help with the math.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem has been explained. Those 4 propositions are "facts" that come from basic experience, but when all 4 are combined present a contradiction.

Great...we'll come back to this.

True or false isn't really relevant

Then why bother with the problem? You called the propositions "facts" above so you either want posters to consider them true or you do yourself. I don't care which. Simply stating the obvious.

There's no obfuscation, just the removal of a metaphysical hypothesis about what "natural" means.

The problem doesn't address any definition of "natural".

How did I break the law of identity?

You took one of those facts and "altered" it into something else. That's the only way to break the law of identity.

"No metaphysics in my physics"

He's literally a physics professor if I'm not mistaken. I believe that what he is saying is that the metaphysical presuppositions that can be found at the beginning of his discipline aren't matters of consideration for him, nor does he need them to be, to justify his understanding of physics. He's correct in this.

Basic experiences, not theoretical objects. The facts that theories are meant to explain.

And this makes sense now that you've explained at the bottom that basic experiences are things you consider true.

The one that I have removed from the set of propositions, namely "natural causes are physical causes."

Even though you consider the terms rather meaningless?

To not talk at cross purposes, possibly.

Exactly. I don't want us to speak past each other. I don't want to misunderstand you, and I don't want you to misunderstand me.

I've said nothing of dogma

You will below.

Amazing I was able to deduce this, right?

The epistemological grounding is the basic experience.

You mean for the propositions.

These propositions aren't theoretical, they are observed facts that need theoretical explanation.

This is you describing them as true.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

You'll notice the definition of fact is inherently intertwined with statements of truth.

Speaking of them in terms of "true" or "false" would be like speaking of taste or smell as "true" or "false". It's categorically wrong.

Well then think of another word than "facts" to describe them. Facts are more than beliefs...they are what we consider to truly exist in reality.

I know Truth because I didn't settle until I got to the bottom of the rabbit hole and stared it in the Face.

Hmmm...

My basis for saying people are deceiving themselves is I see it in operation, the shell games that people play to hide the assumptions they make about reality that masquerade as knowledge.

I'll agree they are hiding assumptions....or perhaps haven't considered them....but I don't see the problem with that. It's nice that you're upfront with your assumptions....but most aren't.

I've given you one of mine which I cannot possibly prove nor justify. Try to consider me honest. It's not a problem for me if people don't regard truth carefully....most of the time.

I'd answer this, but it would likely be pearls before swine.

No need for insults...it was an honest question and important to the discussion.

Many roads, many roads. Not one method. Many roads.

I didn't say 1...I said few. I wish I could agree...but I don't.

You don't see the problem because you've accepted ad hoc solutions by defining the problem away arbitrarily.

That's not what you did? That's what I did?

I am aware of my insistence, because ad hoc solutions don't impress me.

Solutions are Solutions....not sure why ad hoc solutions are an issue. I'm not sure why you believe your solution isn't ad hoc.

Especially in the face of a solution that is fully appropriate and doesn't require multiiplying entities needlessly. Your solutions are ad hoc, so why do you prefer them to mine?

If you're talking about the solutions I presented....I was merely throwing out a few off the top of my head for fun while dropping a duece. They appear to work but again, I came up with them rather quickly just to make a point.

I'm not holding one as my personal belief.

In what way did I break the law of identity? Explain.

At the bottom.

I'm not upset with you, not in the least.

If I were not a believer in Christ, I would be a philosophical skeptic or epistemic nihilist.

I bet those are scary possibilities to you.

You don't have anything to fear from me. I won't try to convince you to drop your religion. I would ask you to consider it's role in any possible motivation for the thread.

The world is not enough, because I cannot arrive at a self-sufficient world without cutting off my epistemic legs. My basis for truth comes from learning the name of God, and that is something each person must do on their own.

I have a sneaking suspicion for what his name is and how to communicate with him. I'm not interested in finding out.

Ordinary investigation, conjecture and falsification, hypothesis testing, modeling with as few assumptions as necessary.

Ok...without any elaborating on what "ordinary investigation" means...or conjecture and falsification....we can skip modeling entirely....it's rather clear now why you keep throwing around the words you do.

Look up the "problem of criterion".

There's no real solutions to the problem, so all paths are unjustified, though the various paths people have come up with have either proven track records or not.

Those "paths to truth" tend to begin with at least one unprovable or unfalsifiable claim.

Strictly speaking, I have no idea what is true.

Ty for the honesty.

I have a hope and a prayer, and I accomodate and incorporate challenging information into a pragmatic model of reality that I know is fundamentally flawed in some manner. I trust my reasoning faculties and sense experiences because I believe they were designed to be generally trustworthy, rather than being the result of what can only be described as chance and random collisions. Truth is something I seek, not something I possess.

I wouldn't recommend seeking truth if you want to be happy. Truth doesn't care. Regardless, I think I understand how you approach truth, I won't properly name them....because you might feel insulted and you shouldn't.

As to the problem....

These are empirical propositions or conjectures because they have not been proven true. They were only considered philosophically interesting because of the limitations of when they were proposed.

You're correct that the problem described is one of logical contradiction. Adding 1 to the other 3 and the logical contradiction occurs. This strongly suggests that at least one, if not more, of the propositions is untrue.

That said, we need not consider them true or consider the problem....and as I stated before, enough evidence for the brain actively creating the mind or "thinking" has surfaced to suggest this is the most likely explanation.