The difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ is not a margin. Recap: the issue is, the nature of the subject experience of organisms, and whether that is something real. My claim is that science is primarily or even only concerned with what is objectively measurable, which in this case, is the evolution of species. That is something objectively measurable. But I’m arguing that this account leaves something important out. When you say ‘what is that?’, the response is, something that is not objectively measurable. I think that is the import of the last sentence in the OP but I’d like to hear what the OP has to say.

My claim is that science is primarily or even only concerned with what is objectively measurable — Wayfarer

OK.

But I’m arguing that this account leaves something important out. When you say ‘what is that?’, the response is, something that is not objectively measurable. — Wayfarer

Yep, and I'm asking why you think it's not objectively measurable. All you've said so far is that any such measurement is prone to error, but that's true of all measurement.

But we’re talking about something unmeasurable in principle. I mean, all kinds of things are objectively measurable about species - distribution, average size, reproduction rate, thousands of things. But the issue I’m raising is the significance - if any - of the inner experience of organisms, the ‘what-it-is-like-to-be’ - a bat or any other kind of creature. And the reason why is that there’s a strong tendency to dismiss that latter quality or attribute as secondary or ‘epiphenomenal’ or derivative, in evolutionary accounts.

I'm no philosopher, Wayfarer but the fact that science can't yet explain the origin or nature of consciousness to our satisfaction does not mean it won't and it doesn't mean we have to say, 'therefore a deity or supernatural realm exists'. That would be the fallacy from ignorance, surely?

The fact remains that there are no known cases of a mind without a brain. Conceptually it may well be that the experience of consciousness is the brain's equivalent of digestion - a neurobiological process - and our use of language and capacity for abstract concepts serves to create a series of confusions about categories. The kinds of confusions that lead idealists to be skeptical of naturalism.

Daniel Dennett may be a bore, but cognitive science has made way more progress in understanding the human mind than, say, Episcopalianism. It's early days and until there is evidence for a soul or some such dualist notion, let's not take it too seriously. The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist.

The denigration of the scientific method (by increasing numbers) reminds me of a lecture John Searle gave where he said, 'How can you send man to the moon and back and seriously wonder if reality exists, or is it really possible to make secure predictions using inductive reasoning."

I'm no philosopher, Wayfarer but the fact that science can't yet explain the origin or nature of consciousness to our satisfaction does not mean it won't and it doesn't mean we have to say, 'therefore a deity or supernatural realm exists'. That would be the fallacy from ignorance, surely? — Tom Storm

Did I say that? And 'criticism' is not 'denigration', the fact that you read like that, that you immediately leap to both those conclusions - that says something.

Sorry poorly expressed. I'm asking you this not saying you said this.

'How can you send man to the moon and back and seriously wonder if reality exists, or is it really possible to make secure predictions using inductive reasoning." — Tom Storm

Yet one of those those who made that voyage became an alcoholic, the other had a life-changing epiphany.

Well I'm pushing buttons here, as it's a philosophy forum, best to ask yourself why.

Yet one of those those who made that voyage became an alcoholic, the other had a life-changing epiphany. — Wayfarer

Funny, but so what?

Well I'm pushing buttons here, as it's a philosophy forum, best to ask yourself why. — Wayfarer

Well, you are making the argument that there is a fatal gap in science, two really: abiogenesis and consciousness - is it not the case that these notions are traditionally the first steps in the contemporary advocacy for a supernatural realm?

It's early days and until there is evidence for a soul or some such dualist notion, let's not take it too seriously. — Tom Storm

When you speak of 'evidence' you're already assuming an empirical stance, when the nature of the question may be such that it can't be adjuticated by empirical means.

Any dualism that I would propose is not between mind and matter, but between measurement and meaning. It is our ability to discern meaning, which the Greeks called 'nous', misleadingly translated as 'intellect', which is the basis of, and prior to, all of the empirical sciences. It is not something 'out there somewhere'.

When you speak of 'evidence' you're already assuming an empirical stance, when the nature of the question may be such that it can't be adjuticated by empirical means. — Wayfarer

I know but - and I am serious about this line of questioning, I am not trolling - what else is there but evidence based knowledge? Can you demonstrate any other kind?

What possibly can the difference be between measurement and meaning in practical demonstration (and I recognise the irony in my question)?

Well, it's a great question, would take a very long answer. What I'm saying is that something important has been lost in the wash. If I criticize Daniel Dennett, who is the poster-boy for materialist philosophy of mind - that's his claim to fame - then there's: Whoa! you saying there's something the matter with science?

The reason I pick Dennett, is because he follows to its logical conclusion the idea that all of life can be understood in wholly objective terms, that life really is the outcome of the 'collocation of atoms'. So I'm not 'attacking straw men', as he represents what has been called 'ultra-Darwinism' and so he throws the questions into stark relief.

Questions are seriously raised in modern academic philosophy, 'what function can consciousness really be said to fulfil?'

What else is there but evidence based knowledge? Can you demonstrate any other kind? — Tom Storm

Maths would be a good starting point.

But there are also many foundational axioms that are held without evidence. Scientific materialism is one. It is a metaphysical stance, not a testable hypothesis as evidenced by the fact that its proponents keep defending it, even while the scientific notion of matter is in constant flux.

That is something like the kind of thing Kuhn talks about in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It's not as if you'll find 'empirical proof of something non-empirical', but questioning the assumptions that underlie empiricism, which is quite a hard thing to do.

BTW, the astronaut who had the life-changing experience was Edgar Mitchell, who founded the Institute of the Noetic Sciences. He's the one who had the epiphany on the voyage.

But the issue I’m raising is the significance - if any - of the inner experience of organisms, the ‘what-it-is-like-to-be’ - a bat or any other kind of creature. And the reason why is that there’s a strong tendency to dismiss that latter quality or attribute as secondary or ‘epiphenomenal’ or derivative, in evolutionary accounts. — Wayfarer

Well, since you brought up consciousness, my favorite topic...

My hypothesis is that qualia are the product of additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles. This generates layers of overlapping entanglement structures spanning many molecules that produce what I call coherence fields. Its basically a kind of quantum resonance analogous to the blending of shades in the visible light spectrum, except much more various and complex (including what is true subjective color). These resonances produce the experience of images, sounds, feels, all the basic sensations, which are organized within the modular mind, firmly attached to the brain in humans, such that self-awareness and meaning as we know them can exist.

If this is accurate, qualia are an emergent property of matter on par with shape and size, and qualitative experience or "what-it-is-like-to-be" emerges from large scale, complex modularization of this qualia-infused matter. The mind's qualia are not then an epiphenomenon, but just as causally fundamental as shape and size.

Qualia and qualitative experience in this account can exist in forms besides what we traditionally know as terrestrial biology, and this provides conceptual space for factors of preternatural spirituality and divinity to be considered as evolutionary influences, what I think is an argument you are making.

So the experience of meaning in all its dimensions can be measured as matter, but this matter contains elements of consciousness at a very basic level, to the extent that matter might be regardable as intrinsically psychical. I think this will resolve mind/body duality and the hard problem without eliminativist rejection of what has traditionally been considered phenomena of immaterial substance.

The default setting in the absence of any evidence of supernatural forces is surely naturalism? For all the bad press naturalism gets, (and you are right that science is concerned with what is objectively measurable - should it be concerned with the subjectively immeasurable?) it is the only known way to acquire reliable knowledge about the world. That said, i am a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist. — Tom Storm

I've been skim reading this thread and (sorry if it is a derailment ) but want to pick up on something I had never heard of before.

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ?

I did a quick search and found this article:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

The abstract:

'In response to the charge that methodological naturalism in science logically requires the a priori adoption of a naturalistic metaphysics, I examine the question whether methodological naturalism entails philosophical (ontological or metaphysical) naturalism. I conclude that the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility.' — Barbara Forrest

Perhaps this would need another thread to discuss.
It is somewhat beyond me but I would like to try and understand these positions.

But there are also many foundational axioms that are held without evidence. Scientific materialism is one. It is a metaphysical stance, not a testable hypothesis as evidenced by the fact that its proponents keep defending it, even while the scientific notion of matter is in constant flux. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand this and the logical absolutes are good examples too. There are many presuppositions we all need to make that cannot be justified. Reason is one. Do we go as far as to call them properly basic?

But even so, I fail to see how it gets us to a supernatural. It just tells us of our limitations. I know Christian apologists are fond of saying atheism is a self refuting philosophy (via the theological thinker Alvin Plantinga, and via Kant I suppose) and that materialism can't account for morality , etc. All hoary old favorite arguments.

But in the we can't get away from science being the only reliable source of knowledge, for all its limitations. Is there another source that can be demonstrated to be reliable? I don't believe we can get to ultimate certainty but seems to me that a multitude of sins are often crammed into any gaps we have in science, without any real quality control.

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity

They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim.

They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim. — Tom Storm

OK. That raises more questions. However, don't wish to spoil this thread by going off track.
I will do more research. Have already found some bedtime reading:

https://optimistminds.com/methodological-naturalism/#:~:text=%20Methodological%20Naturalism%20%201%20Philosophy%20meets%20science.,Naturalism%20must%20be%20differentiated%20from%20Ontological...%20More

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity

‘Methodological naturalism’ excludes what can't be accounted for or conceived of in scientific (objective, quantifiable) terms. It is a perfectly sound methodological step. Philosophical naturalism goes further by saying that only those factors which can be considered scientifically are real. This is where scientific method tends towards 'scientism'.

I fail to see how it gets us to a supernatural. — Tom Storm

Significant again that 'the supernatural' comes up. The issue is actually the limitations of objectivity and the nature of living beings. I am arguing the view that an ontological distinction must be made between living things and inorganic nature. But naturalism is uncomfortable with ontological distinctions, because there is purportedly only one kind of substance, viz a viz, matter - or nowadays matter~energy, which complicates things a bit. But nevertheless that is the tacit understanding of nearly everyone, as per this:

Consciousness is nothing special any more than neutrinos, cockroaches, or I are. It's just one of what Lao Tzu would call the 10,000 things. Just stuff. — T Clark

So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'!

The way I approach it, is not to say that there are 'non-material things' - which is oxymoronic - but to point out that 'the subject' is out of scope for the objective sciences as a matter of definition. This goes right back to the formation of modern scientific method with Newton, Galileo and Descartes. The underlying methodology is to 'bracket out' the observing mind, so as to arrive at precise mathematical descriptions of the 'primary qualities' of entities described according to the methods of algebraic geometery. This 'new science' was held to have universal scope - which indeed it does, but only of what can successfully treated as an object of analysis. And the mind, or more broadly, being itself, cannot be treated that way, as we can never stand outside of it or make an object out of it. This is also a problem that has made itself clear through the observer problem or measurement problem in physics.

Have a peruse of the core of Mind and Cosmos

There are many presuppositions we all need to make that cannot be justified. Reason is one. Do we go as far as to call them properly basic? — Tom Storm

I think reason is indeed 'properly basic', and also that it can't be accounted for naturalistically.

My hypothesis is that qualia are the product of additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles. — Enrique

That seems pseudo-science to me, and plainly dualistic, to boot.

No one denies this. Responsible scientists do not. The best answer to the question of abiogenesis is we don't yet know how it happened. But filling the hole with a fantasy because don't yet have an answer is not cool either. I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, that was what was is being done when Evolutionary Theory is taught as fact in schools. Just filling in a huge hole, the size of the Grand Canyon.

So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer

I'd need know more about where you would take the notion of 'non-material things' because this can be a bit slippery. You hint/highlight that I keep coming back to the theme of the supernatural, or dualism or a superphysical proposal as some kind of unthinking, reactive blurt. Yes, you are partly right.

Because generally this is exactly where people go with these ideas. Maybe not you... By definition, if you say there are 'things which exist that are not verifiable as things' you heading towards a supernatural proposition, surely? Apologies to quantum theory, by the way. Can your non-material things be used to make predictions?

The more crassly expressed version of similar notions might be: 'There is a limit to science; therefore Jesus.' or Aliens. It can also lead to a kind of language game. A revived version of idealism proffered that studiously avoids talking about God in a deliberate way, but is clearly used as a foundation for some form of theism or prime mover - even Tillich's Ground of Being, say.

This is also a problem that has made itself clear through the observer problem or measurement problem in physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, agree. I've referenced this problem before and am quite partial to the idea. With a correspondence theory of truth it is argued you can't survey the relation between the evidence (say) and the reality. But is this just a confusion generated by conceptual language?

The more crassly expressed version of similar notions might be: 'There is a limit to science; therefore Jesus.' or Aliens. It can also lead to a kind of language game. A revived version of idealism proffered that studiously avoids talking about God in a deliberate way, but is clearly used as a foundation for some form of theism or prime mover - even Tillich's Ground of Being, say. — Tom Storm

I see it in terms of cultural dynamics. Secular culture wants to believe the whole matter is settled, that God is not only dead, but buried. It's a neat little box with ribbon tied around it, RIP. So whenever anything comes up that calls this into question, then yipes! What are you saying!

I will make no apologies for being generally on the theistic or idealist side of the ledger. I view today's secular philosophy as parasitical on the body of Western philosophy proper, which is likewise generally idealist, I contend. I'm well familiar with Marxist, atomistic, scientific and naturalistic arguments for atheism, and I don't think any of them stack up. What is neglected is that science itself doesn't explain the 'laws' or principles or regularities it has discovered. It assumes those laws, but it has no idea why f=ma. Nor does it need to know that. It all works fine, without knowing that. But, as Wittgenstein said, 'the whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena'.

But it's not like I'm trying to 'sneak God into the picture'. I've never not believed in God, but the God I believe in has nothing in common with the God that atheists reject. They seem to imagine some super-being, a cosmic director who calls the shots and metes out punishment. I've never accepted that picture. Furthermore, as one who never beleved that religious scriptures were literally true, the fact that they're not literally true has no especial significance in my mind, despite the fact that it seems profoundly important to many atheists. (In that sense, they're kind of 'reverse fundamentalists').

Getting back to origin of life. We like to think of it very much as a kind of large-scale chemical reaction - that the right ingredients come together in some highly dynamic environment, and that this gives rise to the process of replication which is at the origin of life. I sometimes fantisize that if we could zoom Attenborough back 2 or 3 billions years, we could see him standing there, probably in a space-suit, pointing to some black smudges in tidal ponds, and intoning, 'and here we see the ancestors of every plant and animal that will evolve in the next 3 billion years'. And I think that's correct, it's exactly what did happen. But we assume from this that 'mind' is 'the product' of this process. But what if there is an incipient or latent tendency towards mind that exists throughout the Cosmos, and this is the way that it manifests. 'What is latent becomes patent', as my lecturer in Indian philosophy used to say. So you can see the emergence of life as the way in which the Universe itself discovers new horizons of being, horizons that would never be realised in the absence of living beings. 'Nagel’s starting point is not simply that he finds materialism partial or unconvincing, but that he himself has a metaphysical view or vision of reality that just cannot be accommodated within materialism. This vision is that the appearance of conscious beings in the universe is somehow what it is all for; that ‘Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself’.

Whereas, we nowadays think that the mind is the by-product of an essentially accidental and meaningless process. That is what gives rise to a great deal of the nihilism and anomie that typifies modern life. But seeing mind as fundamental totally reverses the perspective. I suppose you could classify that as a form of 'religious naturalism', and I'd go along with that, but it's miles away from the current scientific consensus.

I like how your mind works but I guess (in case you hadn't guessed) we come to different conclusions on these issues. The devil is in the detail with all belief systems. Most atheists are battling against the vast mobilized army of literalists so they have no choice but to pitch the discussion at a vulgar level. Religion pitched at a vulgar level is harmful to human beings.

I don't think anyone should apologize for being an idealist as long as robust critical thinking has been undertaken to arrive at the position.

It's also easy to misread atheists. Most atheists I know don't concern themselves with believers who are progressive and have a sophisticated theology. Tillich or Bentley Hart's Gods are not worth contesting and ultimately do not contribute to life denying, bigotries and superstations that cause real harm in communities. Are they even theists?

There are many shoddy, untheorized atheists who are convinced theism can be disproven and that science has answered everything. There are atheists who believe in astrology and idealism. All a responsible atheist can say is there is no good reason to accept the preposition that a god exists. The idea hasn't met its burden of proof. And for any other proposition there ought to be a good reason. But certainty on anything is not possible. I understand that your epistemology doesn't appreciate this kind of frame.

However for me what matters is actually how people relate to their fellow creatures. The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world.

Panspermia is actually a widely-accepted theory. The possibility at least.

I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic).

That seems pseudo-science to me, and plainly dualistic, to boot. — Wayfarer

What about additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles or "quantum resonance" seems like pseudoscience? Its a testable hypothesis regarding a possibly observable property of matter. Simply the idea of hybridized wavelengths generated by interpenetrating quantum fields, with implications for spiritual aspects of evolution.

I like how your mind works but I guess (in case you hadn't guessed) we come to different conclusions on these issues. — Tom Storm

I know mine is a minority view.

The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world. — Tom Storm

:up: totally agree. You gotta walk the walk. To me it’s a matter of trying to find that source, the ‘wellspring in the heart’. There are times it seems nearby, other times it seems impossible.

Tillich or Bentley Hart's Gods are not worth contesting and ultimately do not contribute to life denying, bigotries and superstations that cause real harm in communities. Are they even theists? — Tom Storm

The culture is much more polarised in America. I think fundamentalists and atheists are like mirror-images in some ways. I have noticed that the ‘vulgar theists’ associated with the ID movement will accuse the likes of Hart of being atheist; by their lights I’d probably be counted as atheist also.

What about additive superposition amongst entangled wavicles or "quantum resonance" seems like pseudoscience? Its a testable hypothesis regarding a possibly observable property of matter. — Enrique

It’s more a matter of whether the subjective reality of being can be explained in any kind of objective terms. What has to be understood is the dynamics of objectification, of how the mind seeks to objectify and then understand in those terms. Which is perfectly understandable in the domain of science and engineering, but this is a different kind of question.

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic). — Outlander

How do you know that an alien from an alien cosmos are bound by rules of cause and effect? Any technology sufficiently advanced will look like magic to us. Any belief can be defended and if it looks dumb to you and me, our views look dumb to others. No different to the notion that God is a magic man and is exempt from cause and effect.

panspermia ought not to be counted out, either. https://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm

It is our ability to discern meaning... — Wayfarer

"Discern" presupposes that meaning already exists.

"Attribute" does not.

:wink:

Consciousness is nothing special any more than neutrinos, cockroaches, or I are. It's just one of what Lao Tzu would call the 10,000 things. Just stuff.
— T Clark

So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer

I do want to make one thing clear, in case I've been misleading - I believe there are legitimate, non-scientific ways to know the world. Most of the ways we know the world are not science based or even rational.

I am arguing the view that an ontological distinction must be made between living things and inorganic nature. — Wayfarer

I disagree with this.