I’m holding out for the discovery that no matter how hard we try, how far the technology specializes, we’re not going to be able to probe the mass of concentrated neurons looking for the one, or the interconnected plurality, that tells me why I crashed the car. — Mww
It was one of those iOS typos, where I mis-typed the word and iOS corrected it to the wrong word, which I only noticed when I re-read it. — Wayfarer
That's putting it strongly. Whether scientific ideas correlate to reality is tested. The idea can be wrong, there's no obvious difference in terms of their ideas. But well-tested ideas, yes, are thought to describe something about reality to some (presumably higher than previous) level of approximation. — Kenosha Kid
Science is not more or less materialistic because the concept of matter is not scientific. It is true that many interpretations of quantum mechanics are not mechanistic. They introduce chance as a component of the described reality. What this reality is is not clear. But the idea that consciousness is a component of quantum reality is only held by two or three eccentric physicists.Overall, I do agree that science is becoming more holistic and less materialistic, — Wayfarer
It’s very simple. Seeing implies looking, looking implies someone who looks, and that observer is never part of the picture. — Wayfarer
Thinking implies someone who thinks and that someone is never part of the thought. — Isaac
there are no meaningful non-scientific questions. — Kenosha Kid
But the idea that consciousness is a component of quantum reality is only held by two or three eccentric physicists. — David Mo
I am nothing more than what I am feeling or thinking. If you take away my feelings, my sensations and my thoughts, I am left as an empty space. I am strictly nothing. Only a vector towards future. — David Mo
Chalmers is pushing for a science of consciousness, — Pop
ut they don’t posit consciousness as ‘a component’. It’s the condition for making an observation, and in the case of some of the fundamental experiments of quantum physics, the outcome is observation-dependent. — Wayfarer
Try to explain what the mind consists of without using terms referring to feelings, sensations and thoughts. You can't. As I said, the mind is nothing substantial, but a vector, a trend, a project. Of course, without it there would be no project. But it is nothing substantially speaking, I insist.The mind is what provides the framework within which all such judgements are made; you can’t ‘take away the mind’ and still have anything whatever to say. — Wayfarer
To be perfectly honest, I do not know. I do remember once being amongst a relatively high number of people who bandied around terms like "mental imagery" and "visual experience" as if they were pervasive elements of sight, and then someone pointed out to me that my use of those terms was theory laden, and the theory with which it was laden was not common sense and was based on presumptions not evidence.Or is your point that this is an example of a meaningless question, as evidence that there are no meaningful unscientific questions?
There is a metaphysical tenet that says images are the schemata of our representations, the real as things given to us, or merely thought, as things might appear to us if they were real. This is clear, when we consider, e.g., the tickle between the shoulder blades. First is the sensation of a presence, then the image of something from experience which the tickle might represent (a bug, a hair) or from mere thought (a ghost, your friend playing a trick on you).
Just so I don't have to reread the thread from page 1 can you define what you take the phrase "a scientific answer" to mean? Can scientific questions have non scientific answers as well as scientific ones? E.g. take the question "Why am I asking you these questions?" Under one way guessing at what you mean by "scientific answer" you might mean by a scientific answer one that is steeped in physiology, neurology, cogntive science etc etc. On the other hand there is the answer "Because I am generally curious about what you might mean". The latter would seem to be a non scientific answer, although that rests on assumptions about what you mean by "a scientific answer", but in all cases it seems to be a perfectly respectable one for all that, and it is also, as it happens, true.Just to reiterate, by "scientific question" I mean a question whose eventual answer is a scientific one.
Surely that must be false. Moral questions, for instance, are not scientific but still meaningfull. — Olivier5
And according to Wigner this is because an observing mind intervenes. I think Von Neumannn is going the same way. True, they are very eccentric and few physicists take them seriously. For very reasonable unscientific reasons. — David Mo
it is nothing substantially speaking, I insist. — David Mo
I do remember once being amongst a relatively high number of people who bandied around terms like "mental imagery" and "visual experience" as if they were pervasive elements of sight, and then someone pointed out to me that my use of those terms was theory laden, and the theory with which it was laden was not common sense and was based on presumptions not evidence. — jkg20
Just so I don't have to reread the thread from page 1 can you define what you take the phrase "a scientific answer" to mean? Can scientific questions have non scientific answers as well as scientific ones? E.g. take the question "Why am I asking you these questions?" Under one way guessing at what you mean by "scientific answer" you might mean by a scientific answer one that is steeped in physiology, neurology, cogntive science etc etc. On the other hand there is the answer "Because I am generally curious about what you might mean". The latter would seem to be a non scientific answer, although that rests on assumptions about what you mean by "a scientific answer", but in all cases it seems to be a perfectly respectable one for all that, and it is also, as it happens, true. — jkg20
Until someone thrusts your finger into boiling water. You forgot to take away your body.I know the idea may seem strange to common sense, but I am nothing more than what I am feeling or thinking. If you take away my feelings, my sensations and my thoughts, I am left as an empty space. I am strictly nothing.
There could be sighted creatures without visual cortexes, at least that seems possible. So even if you just meant by "mental imagery" "whatever goes on in the visual cortex", you still do not have something that need always be involved in sight. Anyway, that to one side, I am still not clear what you mean by a scientific answer. You've indicated what you do not mean, but not what you do mean.visual cortex
Well, since your definition of a scientific question is one with a scientific answer, that becomes almost tautologous. I presume you meant to say something substantial, but what the substance is I cannot figure out unless you fill out what you mean by the phrase "a scientific answer"."How was the Earth created?" is a scientific question with a scientific answer.
There could be sighted creatures without visual cortexes, at least that seems possible. So even if you just meant by "mental imagery" "whatever goes on in the visual cortex", you still do not have something that need always be involved in sight — jkg20
Well, since your definition of a scientific question is one with a scientific answer, that becomes almost tautologous. I presume you meant to say something substantial, but what the substance is I cannot figure out unless you fill out what you mean by the phrase "a scientific answer". — jkg20
What seems impressive to me is how any scientist would think that human rationality can be dismissed as mere noise or an "epiphenomenon", without dismissing the whole of science, a product of human rationality, as mere noise or an "epiphenomenon" as well. Logic, anyone? — Olivier5
In other words, a correct scientific (human) theory about the human mind must assume that the human mind is capable of producing correct scientific theories... — Olivier5
But surely if it's irrational and illogical, it's not science either.If it is not testable, it is not scientific. — Kenosha Kid
That's one point of view. I go with Omar Khayyam instead: the stars and planets are less wise than you are.A scientist may well accept that a human life is a pretty meaningless accident in the scheme of things, and that all human life is a blip in an ambivalent universe. — Kenosha Kid
But surely if it's irrational and illogical, it's not science either — Olivier5
That's one point of view. I go with Omar Khayyam instead: the stars and planets are less wise than you are. — Olivier5
There is a metaphysical tenet that says images are the schemata of our representations.....
Is there an argument for this tenet? — jkg20
But surely if it's irrational and illogical, it's not science either
— Olivier5
I don't think that makes sense. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.