Is science at odds with philosophy?

[durangodawood]

Ah, OK, I get you... The reason is that the part of your brain that has conscious awareness is just a small part of the whole - I've seen neuroscientists estimate 5% or less. Most of the thinking that goes on is not consciously aware. Salient items are brought into conscious awareness on a 'need to know' basis. Most of what happens when you are consciously thinking, i.e. deliberative cognition, is delegated to processes below conscious awareness - when a concept 'comes to mind' it is brought into conscious awareness, and when you remember a name, that name is retrieved by processes below conscious awareness, and so-on. It may well be that the train of thought itself is produced by processes below conscious awareness and as consciousness becomes aware of each stage, it assumes agency.

The analogy is often made of a large company with many departments, each of which reports to the board, and the board basically makes all the decisions. There is a figurehead CEO who represents the company, and who the board will update with important information. The CEO has a PA and a lawyer at his side that continually give advice on how to spin the story, what to say, and what not to say. The CEO has little influence on the company but thinks he runs it. He takes credit for the good board decisions and tries to avoid responsibility for the bad ones - his PA & lawyer help him with this. The CEO thinks he controls the company that he represents to the media and the other figurehead CEOs he meets, but really, he's just there to project a positive image.

Guess who the CEO is

It's not an entirely accurate analogy, but it provides strong imagery of one version of the kind of role conscious awareness is thought to play; there are other versions with a more participatory role for consciousness, e.g. where it helps coordinate the board's activity, but I think the figurehead one can help get used to the idea that the conscious part of you is far less 'at the wheel' than it thinks it is.

Since I was introduced to this view of brain activity, I keep finding confirmations in myself - when I'm thinking hard about a problem, I 'find myself' pacing about the house - not 'deliberately', it just happens. Often my attention will drift, and when it comes back to the problem, I have new ideas - I've apparently been thinking about it 'behind my own back'! When I try to remember a name while talking, it all goes quiet - the name won't come. When I stop trying to remember the name, it 'pops into my consciousness'. I have a sense of humour, but the quips and witticisms 'pop into my consciousness' unbidden - all I have to do is filter them for suitability - but even then it's some process I'm not aware of that flags the ones that are unsuitable (I 'just know')... I also notice linguistic tells, phrases like, "I couldn't help myself", "I found myself doing X", "I didn't mean to say Y", "Before I realised what I was doing...", etc.

Ok this^ is a terrific explanation of the relationship between my conscious Me and the rest of my mind. But I'm getting at something different: a theory of mind that I think would be necessary for the mind dependent reality that @SelfSim talks about.

The difference can perhaps be understood by contrasting the examples we've chosen. Youre talking about remembering a name we once knew but forgot. Where does consciousness find this data, when I dont just know it already? Good question. But my question is different.

In a mind dependent reality model, Im supposing that all the information I see as I scroll though wikipedia (or wherever) must be a function of my own mind. How is my mind formulating a complete presentation of, say, every math topic imaginable, while my conscious self can barely recall the year of calculus I took? It seems beyond superpower that my own mind can produce all the world's knowledge which I mostly never consciously knew from its own reservoirs while conscious me is just stuck knowing what I've learned the hard way. Seems much more reasonable that there's me, there's a world out there that Im part of, and I poke around in it and assimilate data from it. Does this explain the problem I'm getting at?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So the underlined is the stated purpose of the conceived (and perhaps testable) model? Ie: its a logical test of the assumed truth of that model?

The model was tested, and, the results have been consistent with the model, as far as such testing can go.

Its also possible, seeing as you introduced it as an analogy to explain how the model designed for scientific research purposes works .. but not as a claim on how it really works from some mind independent viewpoint(?) Please clarify, because there's ambiguity there, I think(?)

I don't follow; I'm not saying it's an explanation of a model designed for research purposes, I'm saying it's an analogy often used by people in the field as a way to visualise the kind of role consciousness may be playing.

That's the logical part of your brain tracking logical dependencies back to the 'assumed truth' of that model .. that's all. (There is circularity there).

I'm not assuming it's true, I'm looking for indications that it's a reasonably descriptive model, as far as it goes. The fact that I've become aware that I'm not consciously aware of many things I find necessary to support thinking and doing, suggests it has a point.

So you've now found affirmation of the assumed truth originally posited then?
Do you now believe this is how consciousness really works? (Just a question .. not an accusation here .. I'm still grappling with the ambiguity).

I haven't invalidated the model - my personal experience seems consistent with the claim that conscious awareness is more dependent on processes below conscious awareness than popularly supposed, and has considerably less agency.

I don't know how consciousness 'works' - that's a different problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In a mind dependent reality model, Im supposing that all the information I see as I scroll though wikipedia (or wherever) must be a function of my own mind. How is my mind formulating a complete presentation of, say, every math topic imaginable, while my conscious self can barely recall the year of calculus I took? It seems beyond superpower that my own mind can produce all the world's knowledge from its own reservoirs while conscious me is just stuck knowing what I've learned the hard way. Seems much more reasonable that there's me, there's a world out there, and I poke around in it and learn things about it. Does this explain the problem I'm getting at?

Yes; I think the point is that whatever you perceive is in your brain, and while you can make a guess that what you perceive reflects some external reality, you're only ever testing a model against patterns of information you receive. I think it's quite reasonable to treat that model as an approximation of external reality - including a physical brain with nerves that transmit signals to it from sensors in a body that's part of that world. It's intuitive and it works - that's how we've evolved - the model may be limited and selective as a result, but it's got us this far...

 

[durangodawood]

Yes; I think the point is that whatever you perceive is in your brain, and while you can make a guess that what you perceive reflects some external reality, you're only ever testing a model against patterns of information you receive. I think it's quite reasonable to treat that model as an approximation of external reality - including a physical brain with nerves that transmit signals to it from sensors in a body that's part of that world. It's intuitive and it works - that's how we've evolved - the model may be limited and selective as a result, but it's got us this far...

Yeah. My own mind as the author of everything I take in, not just sense data, but organized and coherent systems of knowledge, is just too weird. When picking models to believe in, that one seems contrived and self aggrandizing.

Sure, why not let it be partly a matter of taste.

 

[durangodawood]

Try on: your mind constantly updates your knowledge with new meaning(s) for what it perceives. Its quite a useful conceptual process for describing how our minds 'acquire knowledge'.
Its like a mind constantly exploring itself and assigning meanings .. We're meaning-making machines!

I agree we're total meaning junkies. And we will project it onto things at every opportunity.

But my strong inference from poking into bodies of knowledge is that what I'm getting from text books or wiki etc etc are fully formed systems of coherent meaning that are worked out prior to my capacity to assign meaning to them. If so, does my mind really produce all that in the background while conscious me remains clueless?

 

[SelfSim]

I agree we're total meaning junkies. And we will project it onto things at every opportunity.

But my strong inference from poking into bodies of knowledge is that what I'm getting from text books or wiki etc etc are fully formed systems of coherent meaning that are worked out prior to my capacity to assign meaning to them. If so, does my mind really produce all that in the background while conscious me remains clueless?

Of course not. Other human minds produced all that knowledge because there's plenty of objective evidence for that. The reason you then understand all that meaning produced by other people, is because we all share in the same type of (human) mind, with some variation in 'getting' those meanings.
I mean, would a dog understand a Wiki page?

Those other people went through the same process as I outlined. Their minds updated their knowledge with those meanings and then they conveyed those meanings to you, by using shared language(s). This is not just my belief. Its objectively demonstrable and its the same process followed by us in assigning meaning for 'reality/exists/is', etc. Why would the meaning of 'reality/exists/is' be excluded from that process?

You are only capable of getting all those meanings when you are conscious, by the way.

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah. My own mind as the author of everything I take in, not just sense data, but organized and coherent systems of knowledge, is just too weird. When picking models to believe in, that one seems contrived and self aggrandizing.

There is no need to believe any of it. That would be a choice, once one gets the distinction of belief and sees how science doesn't follow that same process. Science uses a different method which makes no assumptions about what is true, and what isn't true.

I'll take objectivity as an example of 'organised and coherent systems of knowledge'. Objectivity depends on alike thinking minds that understand the process for arriving at objectivity, and its main goal of being practically useful, (in spite of others thinking it may some more elaborate purpose).

Sure, why not let it be partly a matter of taste.

To a certain extent, I think it is .. but what reality means, is kind of important when one is standing on the edge of some cliff somewhere on a windy day (for eg).

 

[stevevw]

It would be refreshing to occasionally hear you making your own arguments instead of a piecemeal assemblage of quotes, articles, and opinion pieces - often out of context, often misinterpreted.

We were debating whether the science method makes assumptions. I had already given my arguement to SelfSim and he disputed it. I asked him if he was sure and he said
Yep, Go look at the widely published textbooks and taught scientific method. It says nothing about assumptions of 'what nature is'.

Thats exactly what I did, as requested. I came back with the support from 3rd party sources to back what I was saying. The problem with coming into other peoples arguements is that you don't know what has been said beforehand. There is a time for having support and there is a time for making your own arguements.

 

[stevevw]

No. You need to distinguish between science and scientists.

Fair enough. But I think that part of the problem is that the articles themselves don't destingusig this ie this is from the National Centre for Science Education
Science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations. The National Academy of Sciences does similar “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. There are many more like it from various mainstream scientific sources.

I think for good reason too. Because the science method itself is being identified with a particular position (methodological naturalism). The NCSE even goes as far as linking it with materialism. Individual scientists can have their own positions but from what I am reading it seems science as a body has its own position as well. Perhaps its become politicized.

No. A hypothesis is not an assumption.

It seems more than a hypothesis for the science method to say that consciousness must be physical because it is speaking about what consciousness is or isn't and not just a proposed explanation for the starting point of further investigation. It is assuming that from the starting point consciousness is only physical by restricting the verification to only physical stuff. So any hypothesis can only be about physical causes. If anyone made a hypothesis that consciousness was anything other than physical stuff it would be shot down as woo.

 

[stevevw]

If that's how you understand it, you've misinterpreted it. A reasonable (provisional) conclusion based on reliable evidence is not an assumption.

But its the assumption that consciousness is caused by the physical brain in the first place thats going to cause that conclusion. Its circular reasoning. The idea that everything is physical is the assumption so of course the scientific method is going to support its own assumption if thats all its looking for. But in the greater scheme of things consciousness may not be physical.

An assumption is something that you accept as true without question or proof.

Yes and thats what the scientific method is doing. Its accepting that everything is physical to begin with and not arguing or supporting that case. Therefore it accepts something without question and proof. It then restricts the verification of this to only testing physical stuff so it will verify its own assumptions.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe you need to think more deeply about what 'reality' means to experiencers (observers).

It could mean many different things to different people and animals for that matter. The different interpretations of quantum physics all have equal possibility so who really knows.

 

[SelfSim]

The model was tested, and, the results have been consistent with the model, as far as such testing can go.

I don't follow; I'm not saying it's an explanation of a model designed for research purposes, I'm saying it's an analogy often used by people in the field as a way to visualise the kind of role consciousness may be playing.

I'm not assuming it's true, I'm looking for indications that it's a reasonably descriptive model, as far as it goes. The fact that I've become aware that I'm not consciously aware of many things I find necessary to support thinking and doing, suggests it has a point.

I haven't invalidated the model - my personal experience seems consistent with the claim that conscious awareness is more dependent on processes below conscious awareness than popularly supposed, and has considerably less agency.

I don't know how consciousness 'works' - that's a different problem.

Ok .. ambiguity resolved. Thanks. All cool with me now.

 

[SelfSim]

If anyone made a hypothesis that consciousness was anything other than physical stuff it would be shot down as woo.

It wouldn't be an hypothesis if it was formed without the intention of testing it.

Come to think of it, that's also the difference between an assumption and a testable model.

Your complaint that 'consciousness was anything other than physical stuff' couldn't be turned into a testable hypothesis because it already assumes 'anything other than physical stuff' exists (without the intention of testing it). IOW, that idea is just held as being 'true' by you, in your complaint there. Its an assumption, and not an hypothesis.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes and thats what the scientific method is doing. Its accepting that everything is physical to begin with and not arguing or supporting that case. Therefore it accepts something without question and proof. It then restricts the verification of this to only testing physical stuff so it will verify its own assumptions.

That might be your perception of what's going on there .. but it only seems that way to you, because of your assumption about the truth that: 'anything other than physical stuff exists'.
(Which is of course, just a belief you're holding on to).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah. My own mind as the author of everything I take in, not just sense data, but organized and coherent systems of knowledge, is just too weird. When picking models to believe in, that one seems contrived and self aggrandizing.

Not the author of everything you take in, but a constructor of models from it. Personally I think that, in general, the models are detailed, consistent, and durable enough to support the idea that they are, at least partial models of a source of information that we call reality. But we effectively live in the models - the brain receives information from all our senses as neural Morse code, nothing else.

 

[stevevw]

It wouldn't be an hypothesis if it was formed without the intention of testing it.

Yet scientists propose non-physical ideas about consciousness and use the science method to try and verify them. I am saying that this is usually seen as woo regardless because it is assumed by mainstream science that anything non-physical is woo. No one even gets the chance to form hypothesis and test them as they are rejected from the start.

Come to think of it, that's also the difference between an assumption and a testable model.

How do you mean. First an assumption is made and then it is tested. If it stands up to testing then it is verified. But the assumption is made first before the testing.

Your complaint that 'consciousness was anything other than physical stuff' couldn't be turned into a testable hypothesis because it already assumes 'anything other than physical stuff' exists (without the intention of testing it). IOW, that idea is just held as being 'true' by you, in your complaint there. Its an assumption, and not an hypothesis.

I think you have just agreed with me. Maybe we are on the same page and there is a communication breakdown.

I am not holding any idea up but rather posing the question or being the devils advocate. I am saying that the science method assumes that physical stuff is all there is and non-physical stuff is woo. I am saying in the overall scheme of things how does science know apart from using their owm measuring system which is biased towards physical stuff. For all we know consciousness may be the result of non-physical causes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We were debating whether the science method makes assumptions. I had already given my arguement to SelfSim and he disputed it. I asked him if he was sure and he said
Yep, Go look at the widely published textbooks and taught scientific method. It says nothing about assumptions of 'what nature is'.

Thats exactly what I did, as requested.

Did you? So which textbooks and educational descriptions of the scientific method did you look at?

I see no mention of or quotes from textbooks or educational descriptions of the scientific method, just more quotes from articles, and philosophical opinion pieces.

 

[stevevw]

That might be your perception of what's going on there .. but it only seems that way to you, because of your assumption about the truth that: 'anything other than physical stuff exists'.
(Which is of course, just a belief you're holding on to).

I am talking about a philosophical view of what reality is in the overall scheme of things which doesnt rule anything out. The scientific method only rules physical stuff in and then excludes non-physical stuff by the methods they use. That method doesnt allow other possibilities like non-physical causes.

It may be OK for our closed system in our tiny part of what could be a massive realm or any possible makeup including being part of a multiverse but it doesnt mean it should apply to all these other possibilities. So I am talking about how we should include all possibilities to be fair. That may require adjusting our measuring methods and criteria.

In fact some scientists are already talking about this because trying to unify quatum physics and classical physic is proving hard. The interpretations from quantum experiments is causing some to look to possibilities beyond our physical parameters like with the multiverse and string theory. They want to reduce the verification criteria to allow for ideas that may prove elegant and explanatory but not necessarily verified.

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.
Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical.
Earlier this year, championing the multiverse and the many-worlds hypothesis, Carroll dismissed Popper's falsifiability criterion as a “blunt instrument”
http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems more than a hypothesis for the science method to say that consciousness must be physical because it is speaking about what consciousness is or isn't and not just a proposed explanation for the starting point of further investigation. It is assuming that from the starting point consciousness is only physical by restricting the verification to only physical stuff. So any hypothesis can only be about physical causes. If anyone made a hypothesis that consciousness was anything other than physical stuff it would be shot down as woo.

That's just wrong; and if you read the history of consciousness research, you'll find all kinds of strange and interesting hypotheses have been tested, including the paranormal. But in every case, when apparent breakthrough discoveries were made in paranormal correlations with consciousness, the experiments failed replication under more tightly controlled conditions.

If you'd like to suggest some of the ways you think non-physical aspects of consciousness can be investigated, I can probably tell you if it's been attempted.

So what's the hypothesis you want to test, and how do you propose it should be tested?

 

[stevevw]

Did you? So which textbooks and educational descriptions of the scientific method did you look at?

I see no mention of or quotes from textbooks or educational descriptions of the scientific method, just more quotes from articles, and philosophical opinion pieces.

It seems I am damned either way you look at it. First you say I should explain things in my own words as though this is good enough. Yet you then question any links I may use anyway like they are all important.

So I linked an article from National Centre for Science Education, National Academy of Sciences and Princton education. As far as I know these are education outlets. I also used Wikipedia as it seems to be a well used source and is educational. This is on top of a number of other links I provided beforehand from what I think are good scientific sources like Berkerley. Com and NBCI which is peer reviwed science.

I don't think peer review science is just opinion nor do I think a site like Berkeley would allow opinion to be their official position on science. I think you cannot avoid philosophy when talking about what science is or is not and how it should be done.