Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[Jjmcubbin]

There's an entire branch of philosophy devoted to community issues - covering politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, etc. - it's called political philosophy.

Another related branch of philosophy relevant to communities is the philosophy of ethics.

One could argue about whether science is natural philosophy and technology is applied science, but in any case, it's not competition for the 'most applications'.

There's a good argument that philosophy helps us decide the goals that science and technology enable us to achieve; i.e. science and technology are, in a sense, the tools of philosophy.

From what I read, political philosophy is being replaced by political theory. I've personally never seem a philosopher working on ethics, but I'm sure they exist.
I don't remember why I threw in the comparison. So I would like to take it back.
If philosophy decides goals for science (never seen it, would have to ask a scienctist but I think I know the answer), shouldn't philosophy be a tool for science?

 

[Speedwell]

From what I read, political philosophy is being replaced by political theory. I've personally never seem a philosopher working on ethics, but I'm sure they exist.
I don't remember why I threw in the comparison. So I would like to take it back.
If philosophy decides goals for science (never seen it, would have to ask a scienctist but I think I know the answer), shouldn't philosophy be a tool for science?

From what I read, political philosophy is being replaced by political theory. I've personally never seem a philosopher working on ethics, but I'm sure they exist.
I don't remember why I threw in the comparison. So I would like to take it back.
If philosophy decides goals for science (never seen it, would have to ask a scienctist but I think I know the answer), shouldn't philosophy be a tool for science?

Most science undergraduates take a course in the philosophy of science. Here is a brief overview:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[Tayla]

How can you possibly say that when we don’t actually know what the answers are?

That's the point. We don't know what the answers are. How can the subjective experience of consciousness be part of the material physical universe?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If philosophy decides goals for science (never seen it, would have to ask a scienctist but I think I know the answer), shouldn't philosophy be a tool for science?

They're both knowledge acquisition and exploration tools, but address different aspects of knowledge. With philosophy, we can explore our goals and the options for structuring society to achieve them. With science, we can (in principle) evaluate those options for effectiveness in achieving the goals, and implement the means to achieve them.

Very crudely, philosophy explores what we want, science can tell us how best to get there, and applied science (technology) can get us there.

In practice, it doesn't usually work like that, because there is no consensus on the goals, and the science of social organization is immature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's the point. We don't know what the answers are. How can the subjective experience of consciousness be part of the material physical universe?

If consciousness is a brain process (as all the scientific evidence suggests), how can it not be part of the material physical universe?

That it is a process that has a subjective aspect (i.e. that there is something it is like to be a brain running such a process) is then just an interesting emergent feature of certain self-referential, self-mapping processes in the material physical universe.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that this thread is a wonderfull example why this forum is irrelevant.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

They're both knowledge acquisition and exploration tools, but address different aspects of knowledge. With philosophy, we can explore our goals and the options for structuring society to achieve them. With science, we can (in principle) evaluate those options for effectiveness in achieving the goals, and implement the means to achieve them.

Very crudely, philosophy explores what we want, science can tell us how best to get there, and applied science (technology) can get us there.

In practice, it doesn't usually work like that, because there is no consensus on the goals, and the science of social organization is immature.

Well, I never learned philosophy, but your post seems right in theory, I guess.

Most science undergraduates take a course in the philosophy of science. Here is a brief overview:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I didn't know that, thanks! I have to say, philosophy is not my cup of tea.

 

[Tayla]

If consciousness is a brain process (as all the scientific evidence suggests), how can it not be part of the material physical universe?

Yes, I agree that consciousness has an aspect involving brain function, for example, it can be turned off via anesthesia or severe head injuries.

 

[Tayla]

That it is a process that has a subjective aspect (i.e. that there is something it is like to be a brain running such a process) is then just an interesting emergent feature of certain self-referential, self-mapping processes in the material physical universe.

I don't believe there is any such thing as an "emergent property". Using that phase means you know it is not part of the material physical universe so you have to invent a magical other-worldly source. And that's my point exactly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, I never learned philosophy...
... I have to say, philosophy is not my cup of tea.

I thought that too, until I started studying it. At worst it's an education in critical thinking, argument, and logic; at best it's an education in the full variety of human ideas and beliefs. Someone once said it's "asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers", but in truth it's less about answers and more about exploring the questions.

Just don't start with the German philosophers, especially Hegel...

 

[gaara4158]

That's the point. We don't know what the answers are. How can the subjective experience of consciousness be part of the material physical universe?

What kind of question is that? It’s undeniably clear that subjective experience is tied to specific functions of the brain and nervous system. In other words, the material physical universe accounts for brain function, and brain function accounts for subjective experience. That we don’t know exactly how that happens isn’t an indication of some immaterial source of consciousness. Appealing to unsettled mysteries of science is just a god of the gaps argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't believe there is any such thing as an "emergent property". Using that phase means you know it is not part of the material physical universe so you have to invent a magical other-worldly source.

No; whether you believe it or not, an emergent property is a property that arises from the bulk interaction of elements that do not have that property. For example, the wetness of water is an emergent property - individual water molecules are not wet; temperature and pressure are emergent properties of the bulk movement of many individual gas molecules, as is sound. A great example of emergent properties is the cellular automaton Conway's Game of Life, where the squares in a static grid are set black or white ('on' or 'off', or 'living' or 'dead') according to simple rules about the state of neighbouring cells. Repeating these rules over every cell in the grid leads to patterns of cells moving across the grid and interacting. These moving, interacting patterns are canonical emergent phenomena - they emerge from the application of simple rules to the 'on'/'off' state of static cells in a grid.

Similarly, consciousness and the sense of self, are the emergent properties of billions of synchronised neurons signalling to each other in specific ways. We know this because we can modify or disrupt every detectable or reportable aspect of consciousness, and the sense of self, by disrupting the signalling between those neurons in specific and repeatable ways.

Neuroscience has made huge strides in recent years; for example, we now know how and where short-term, medium-term, and long-term memories are stored, and we've had some success in determining what someone is thinking about by examining their brain activity.

 

[dgiharris]

My argument for why I trust evolution more than other means of explaining how we came to be today...

Imagine a person who claims to have some basic ESP. He says he can prove it to you.

So you blind fold him, then hold up various items and he is able to guess what you hold up. You suspect there is some trick, so you ask him to strip naked, he does and he is still able to guess the items you hold up. You then isolate him in a room, just you and him and he is still able to guess what you hold up. You write random numbers on a piece of paper, you point to various things, you make up words... no matter what you do, he is able to guess it.

How many times would he have to guess correctly before you believed that he had ESP?

1 time, 10 times, 100 times, a million times????

At some point you'd have to accept the data.

Well, this is how I regard evolution. You see, evolution is based off of scientific methodology. Evolutionary theory is rooted in science. The same science that has proven itself a billion different ways in the billion different products and services we use every single day is the same science that supports evolution.

Are there some holes? Sure. But I'm way more willing to "Trust" evolution than other explanations based on the fact that evolution comes from science and science proves itself every day. Even when science is "wrong" it is willing to acknowledge that wrong, right the ship, and keep on going in its pursuit of the truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I accept evolution but am troubled by the randomness required to generate mutations and other changes that natural selection subsequently operates upon. I think that at least some of these are not random at all but are in some way directed, perhaps at the quantum mechanics level in which the wave function collapses in a directed manner. This is, of course, a variety of intelligent design which, I admit, is not science.

You could make it science, by demonstrating it.

If you can't demonstrate it, and in fact have no evidence at all to support such a hypothesis, then the obvious honest question becomes: how did you even come up with it? Why even propose it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science is the only way to learn about the material physical universe. But there are a few evidences of things that are not material. Consciousness for one.

All the evidence suggests that consciousness is the product of the physical brain.

Also, the fine tuning of the physical constants.

Argument from ignorance. "we don't know why these values, therefor god".

And the incredible unlikeliness that random mutations designed and created the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions

Not really unlikely, in context of evolution

 

[DogmaHunter]

In fact, God's subtle interactions would not be discernible to us at all.

Then how could you possibly know that they occur?
Or, otherwise put, why would you believe so?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How can the subjective experience of consciousness be part of the material physical universe?

Because it is the product of a material physical brain.