How many times must empiricism be killed? — Srap Tasmaner
I brought him up because there's a lot of "Bayesian brain" talk these days.-- in other words, don't worry about it, your brain is doing math for you that you wouldn't even understand, — Srap Tasmaner
I was just wondering if we could imagine an arrangement that feels to us like we just have this conceptual framework, but underneath it is being generated along empiricist lines. We have these two levels; the classic empiricists didn't. — Srap Tasmaner
Maybe creating those models is an innate feature of our brains. Maybe creating the models is subconscious. Would that fit your idea of a conceptual framework generated along empiricist lines? It seems like this formulation requires an innate capability rather than a blank slate. Can you lay out a scenario that is illustrative of your concept of a conceptual framework that is generated along empiricist lines? — flaco
We have these two levels; the classic empiricists didn't. — Srap Tasmaner
On my model, the disputes can be internal to one person. There are multiple options and you're not sure which to believe: how do you choose? It's the same exact problem as different people with different opinions trying to decide which if either is correct. — Pfhorrest
a human being must be able to construct a conceptual apparatus out of the only material she has, her individual sense experience — Srap Tasmaner
You can’t make sense of anything without a little priming of the conceptual pump. We are born with an innate natural logic that allows us to think about our observations and draw lessons from them, as well as with a capacity to model a Euclidian space (which is why non-Euclidian geometries are counter-intuitive). We are also born with hard-wired instincts and tropisms, just like any other animal species: we like certain things (eg the taste of honey) and dislike others (the sight of blood) innately. — Olivier5
To make the long story short, it's complicated! — TheMadFool
So it’s the combination of reason and observation that is powerful. Reason alone is blind, and observation alone is meaningless. — Olivier5
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Juvenal
So it’s the combination of reason and observation that is powerful. Reason alone is blind, and observation alone is meaningless. — Olivier5
A model that only accepts concurrence between reason and observation should work well enough to save the day. — TheMadFool
Where are all the forum's Kantians — Srap Tasmaner
This would be ok for a description of a philosophical zombie, but real people have emotions.
Wouldn't surprise be your immediate reaction? The Bayesian Brain theory predicts that it would. — Pop
A model that only accepts concurrence between reason and observation should work well enough to save the day. — TheMadFool
An elephant on your work desk would initially cause you surprise. Your initial reaction would be emotional. This needs to be taken into account. Emotion is present in every experience, and thought. Neither of you have taken this into account. This is the hard problem. :smile: — Pop
It can also be a fight, a competition between them. E.g. in the case of a hyper-skeptic, aka a denialist, whose own reason finds ways to stubbornly reject any evidence contrary to her theory as ‘not good enough’, ‘inconclusive’, ‘fake’, etc. Or vice-versa sometimes our senses are being treacherous, e.g. in optical illusions. So those two don’t always cooperate. — Olivier5
I suppose emotions add another layer to experience, over and above basic comprehension. I don't see how it's related to empiricism though? — TheMadFool
Empiricism dose not acknowledge emotions role in experience whatsoever.
In light of the philosophical zombie argument, where emotion is essential to consciousness and experience, this seems incoherent.
Edit:
Empiricism posits that all knowledge is derived from experience, but it dose not understand experience. It fails to take into account the role of emotion in experience. — Pop
You can’t make sense of anything without a little priming of the conceptual pump. We are born with an innate natural logic that allows us to think about our observations and draw lessons from them, as well as with a capacity to model a Euclidian space (which is why non-Euclidian geometries are counter-intuitive). — Olivier5
The method of "postulating" what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil. — Russell
The honest toil of empiricism is to explain how we could have the conceptual apparatus we have -- objects and causes and all the rest -- without just stealing it from the gods like Prometheus. — Srap Tasmaner
Empiricism dose not acknowledge emotions role in experience whatsoever.
In light of the philosophical zombie argument, where emotion is essential to consciousness and experience, this seems incoherent.
Edit:
Empiricism posits that all knowledge is derived from experience, but it dose not understand experience. It fails to take into account the role of emotion in experience. — Pop
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.