My contention is that some kind of dualism is more scientific than materialism — lorenzo sleakes

I'm confused. Wouldn't that dualism be denied by any science that you can name?

In which case consciousness would be left either a monist instrumental observational object of physiology, or an indirect suppositional construct of psychology, a perhaps an ungrounded model of philosophy, or just a plain real subjective personal insight, subject to sensation and perception, devoid of label?

if consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes then it cannot ever have any independent effect back to the physical world and therefore it cannot be detected or measured in any way. — lorenzo sleakes

This is an interesting thing to say.

We know that the mind is indirectly affected by physical events as sensations and can indirectly cause movement and actions. But I don't know how that works for consciousness. If you say that consciousness is the reflective inner working of the mind, then I'd have to agree.

Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle that can never be detected. Such a view would be dismissed as meaningless and unscientific. But the view that physical processes generate consciousness but consciousness has no independent effect back on physical processes is the same.
No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. An invisible object which has no causal efficacy disappears into pure speculation.
On the other hand if I clap my hands and create a particle called a poltergeist that I claim has some effect on the world then that claim can be tested, falsified and verified. At least it a scientific claim. We are discussing consciousness so it must have some ability to speak for itself. — lorenzo sleakes

I love thought experiments to simplify and clarify ideas and I also use them as often as I can. Are you here still talking about consciousness itself or about a broader interactive transcendent mind?

Incidentally,

Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle — lorenzo sleakes

Clapping is a physical act of slapping two material objects together in such a way that physical waves are produced in the air. Some instruments, like microphones, will detect the air waves. When a person or animal is present this is heard as a sudden loud sound.
But clapping can also be produced by just one object or physical event, such as lightning, or a plane breaking the sound barrier, or a whip, or a wet towel.
Never mind my musings. Obviously, when a tree falls in the forest it produces shock waves in the air and the ground, but sound must be heard.

My contention is that some kind fo dualism — lorenzo sleakes

No. It's the opposite.

Consciousness appears to be something we can only observe from the inside — lorenzo sleakes

A bit like eyesight, or taste, or all feeling. In fact all products of the brain seem to be individual just like you described consciousness.

But the view that physical processes generate consciousness but consciousness has no independent effect back on physical processes is the same. — lorenzo sleakes

No, because the brain is actually doing everything physical that you described. It is simply contained, and you cannot see it. fMRI's can be used to see what is going on in the brain visually, such is a refutation of this assertion.

No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. — lorenzo sleakes

Which makes it a negative proof. Meaning, it's not a thing. Especially as all the cog-sci evidence suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain. And I do mean, all evidence currently extant.

then that claim can be tested, falsified and verified. — lorenzo sleakes

No, it really can't. How do I test for poltergeist. I'll have only negative proof.

We are discussing consciousness so it must have some ability to speak for itself. — lorenzo sleakes

It wrote this thread, and this response to this thread.

Meaning, it's not a thing. Especially as all the cog-sci evidence suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain. — Garrett Travers

Not a function. A property that can't be explained.

Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle — lorenzo sleakes

These are actually hypothesized in science. Bad ghost particles and good ones. Depending on their impact on symmetry. Bad ghosts fields introduce negative kinetic non-virtual particle fields (seriously!). There could even be bad condensates...

It has to be private to avoid an infinite regress of observers observing observers — lorenzo sleakes

Let us assume that consciousness is not private. It is very much possible for one person A to observe the consciousness of person B without having their own consciousness observed. Being observable is not equal to being observed.

Now if consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes then it cannot ever have any independent effect back to the physical world and therefore it cannot be detected or measured in any way — lorenzo sleakes

If consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes, then it becomes meaningless to say that it cannot have an independent effect back to the physical world, because the chain of cause and effect has never stepped out of the physical world.

There are other ways to detect or measure an object than observing its effects. If an object is an effect of another object or process, then it can be detected indirectly by detecting its cause. And if you have a complete description of how changes in the cause impact the object that is being studied, then you can easily make descriptions of the object without ever observing it.

There is always a problem with discussions of consciousness. People don't define exactly what they mean. Two choices, 1) self-awareness or 2) experience, i.e. what things feel like. There are other possibilities. From what you've written, I think you mean #2. Is that correct.

Consciousness appears to be something we can only observe from the inside. It is private. It has to be private — lorenzo sleakes

I don't think this is true. I am observing your consciousness right now by reading what you have written. I'll let you observe mine - I am sitting in my living room. I see a brown reclining chair with leather cushions made in a pseudo-mission style. It's old, so the leather is cracked and discolored.

if consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes then it cannot ever have any independent effect back to the physical world and therefore it cannot be detected or measured in any way. — lorenzo sleakes

I don't understand the logic of this.

No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. — lorenzo sleakes

As I've indicated, I don't think this is true.

Maybe the material world is an epiphenomenon of its ingredients. I mean, if you say that the mind is an epiphenomenon, going along with physical processes, you can just as well contend the inverse, i.e. physical processes being the epiphenomenon.

My contention is that some kind fo dualism is more scientific than materialism. — lorenzo sleakes

On this forum, you probably won't get much traction with that assertion. Since the Enlightenment era, modern Science has been identified with ideological Materialism and philosophical Monism. So. "more scientific" could be interpreted as "more materialistic". In which case, your contention would be easily dismissed as misconstrued. For example, a materialist would demolish your claim with "show me the money empirical evidence!" As you admitted, "No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested".

However, if you would re-word your postulation to say "dualism is more Reasonable", it would qualify as a debatable philosophical hypothesis instead of an empirical scientific Theory. In philosophy, there are few settled facts or closed questions. So, you could proceed to support your contention with logical argument. Unfortunately, doctrinaire Materialists do not accept Reason as evidence of anything. Reason is itself epi-phenomenal, and non-empirical. The material phenomenon is the Brain, and its epi-phenomenon is viewed as merely a byproduct of neural processes. Hence, Brain is defined as the fundamental element of which Mind is a mere illusion, generated by brain matter.

Consequently, any response to your re-worded proposal for discussion, should be limited to Philosophical Evidence. In that case, it would be an open-ended dialogue of personal opinions, not of objective facts. Your thesis couldn't be proven or dis-proven, merely subjectively accepted as more or less reasonable. If it came to a vote though, few practicing scientists would agree, but the majority of non-scientists would find your mind/body dualism to be intuitively satisfactory

That said, in my personal opinion, everything in the world is dualistic, in the sense of Universal Symmetry. That is a fundamental assumption of Physics : implying that opposites, such as Matter & Antimatter, are merely different forms of the same thing. So, you could make a case that Matter (epi-phenomenon) & Mind (phenomenon) are merely dualistic forms of some underlying essence. However, binary Symmetry also implies that the whole world system is ultimately Monistic.

Some scientists & philosophers have postulated that Energy is the essence of everything. But, more recently, intangible Information has been proposed as the fundamental element of both Matter & Energy, and even of Mind. All being symmetrical forms or phases of a singular Quintessence. If so, your contention for Mind/Body dualism, could be construed as an Information Monism, in which Energy, Matter, & Mind are all epi-phenomena of the unitary power to Enform. But, don't expect many pragmatic scientists or ideological materialists to agree with you. :nerd:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Epiphenomenon :
a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epiphenomenon

Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/

Symmetry :
Symmetries lie at the heart of the laws of nature. . . . Symmetry represents those stubborn cores that remain unaltered even under transformations that could change them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/490472a
Note -- broken symmetry results in duality

Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn't matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Quintessence :
The fifth element refers to what was known as the aether, a special unknown substance that permeated the celestial sphere and was purer than any of the four terrestrial elements. The notion of a fifth element was broached by Plato and later written about by Aristotle, but neither philosopher used the term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/quintessence-origin-meaning-history-elements

Not a function. A property that can't be explained. — EugeneW

No, not from what seems to be the case. It (IS) the function. You see? It's something that your executive function is simply noticing.

It's that which resides in the functioning systems.

It's that which resides in the functioning systems. — EugeneW

It can't reside in it, if you cut the brain open, all you find is the contents of the brain. Consciousness is a production of the brain, just as sight is. It isn't as if sight is being viewed in the manner that you're talking about with consciousness, yet it is the exact same thing. It's isn't like sight is that which resides in the eye balls, it is a perceptive data integration. So is consciousness.

Materialism is a metaphysical position concerning ontology, and so it cannot be answered by empirical means in virtue of its very nature. So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one.

This goes for idealism, dualism, et. cetera. None of these are the kind of theses that can truly interact with empirical investigation.

So yes, it is unscientific, as a lot of philosophy is (which isn't exactly a bad thing, either.)

It can't reside in it, if you cut the brain open, all you find is the contents of the brain — Garrett Travers

It's about the content of matter. Not in between or around it. There you won't find it. It litterally resides inside it. The proof is feeling pain your whole life. Pain defines life. Life is an experience of intense pain, with small interdoli of relieve, mania, intense euphoria or eudaemonia.

Materialism is a metaphysical position concerning ontology, and so it cannot be answered by empirical means in virtue of its very nature. So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one.

This goes for idealism, dualism, et. cetera. None of these are the kind of theses that can truly interact with empirical investigation. — Kuro

You will find that many disagreements here on the forum center around the misunderstanding you describe. When you're talking ontology and epistemology, many becomes most. The fact that metaphysical positions have no truth value is something I've argued many times here without convincing anyone.

Welcome to the forum.

Materialism is a metaphysical position concerning ontology, and so it cannot be answered by empirical means in virtue of its very nature. So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one. — Kuro

A very astute point, my friend.

Materialism is a metaphysical position concerning ontology, and so it cannot be answered by empirical means in virtue of its very nature. So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one.
— Kuro

A very astute point, my friend. — Garrett Travers

Reductionism, your favored approach to knowledge, is also a metaphysical position, but you attempt to justify it empirically all the time.

Reductionism, your favored approach to knowledge, is also a metaphysical position, but you attempt to justify it empirically all the time. — T Clark

No, you'll notice I attempt to empirically describes things that are true, while you do nothing. Metaphysical claims are not falsifiable by science, but that does not mean that metaphysical claims that contradict science directly, as is often how you and your pals operate, are going to be permitted intellectually.

No, you'll notice I attempt to empirically describes things that are true, while you do nothing. Metaphysical claims are not falsifiable by science, but that does not mean that metaphysical claims that contradict science directly, as is often how you and your pals operate, are going to be permitted intellectually. — Garrett Travers

Your post didn't respond to what I wrote. My assertions are 1) Reductionism is a metaphysical position 2) You are a reductionist 3) Metaphysical positions are not verifiable by empirical means 4) You attempt to verify reductionism by empirical means in many of your arguments.

Materialism is a metaphysical position concerning ontology, and so it cannot be answered by empirical means in virtue of its very nature. So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one.

This goes for idealism, dualism, et. cetera. None of these are the kind of theses that can truly interact with empirical investigation.

So yes, it is unscientific, as a lot of philosophy is (which isn't exactly a bad thing, either.) — Kuro

:100: :up:

Reductionism is a metaphysical position — T Clark

Okay.

You are a reductionist — T Clark

No I'm not.

Metaphysical positions are not verifiable by empirical means — T Clark

Yep.

You attempt to verify reductionism by empirical means in many of your arguments. — T Clark

No. I attempt to provide empirical evidence for phenomena that exists.

Now, let's discuss.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Materialism is the position that all that exists is either matter or energy, the two being equivalent E = mc².

Dualism espouses a tertium quid (a third) that's neither matter nor energy, the mind being the object of interest.

Is dualism falsfiable? I dunno but dualism is incompatible with materialism as it (dualism) would break the 1^st law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy): There would be energy in the system (the brain/the body) that can't be accounted for physically/materialistically.

In short, dualism can't be scientific.

That said, the OP's intuition (probably) stems from the fact that science is easily conflated with rationality (we must be willing to abandon our beliefs, even those dearest to us, if evidence contradicts such beliefs).

:chin:

I dunno but dualism is incompatible with materialism as it (dualism) would break the 1st law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy — Agent Smith

Not sure I follow, my love. You know I would follow you everywhere normally but here it's very hard for me. Please understand. Why would dualism break energy conservation?

You are making consciousness an object in order to separate it from matter.

Well, by now, I think it's not relevant to science really. Most scientists simply do experiments without assuming any metaphysical stance.

There are exceptions, but not too many.

So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one. — Kuro

Nice and succinct.

Materialism is very scientific. It's the base of all of the sciences. Science investigates matter. Matter is science's subject matter. Ask the cell and molecular biologist, the neurologist, the nuclear specialist, the physician, the particle physicist, the astrophysicist, the meteorologist, the cosmologist, or the chemist. It are the philosophers making a fuzz about it.

Not sure I follow, my love. You know I would follow you everywhere normally but here it's very hard for me. Please understand. Why would dualism break energy conservation? — EugeneW

Good question. To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. If dualism were true, this would be false (there would be energy that can't be explained materialistically) and we could/should then hypothesize another source (immaterial) for the extra energy. That's how I understoosd it, could be wrong.

To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. — Agent Smith

Your conflating science with philosophical theory. Aristotle's hylomorphs are an example of dualism -- matter and form. The theory accounted for the form to be already in the universe, and not an extra entity. Your total energy objection doesn't apply here and does not invalidate, per se, the theory of dualism.

If you reject dualism, don't use total energy or something like that, but use (1) intelligibility -- is it necessary that we account for another substance like form and how is it to be understood as a compound of existence. Or (2) there is no dualism -- one composition, i.e. materialism could account for the mental processes.

Your conflating science with philosophical theory. Aristotle's hylomorphs are an example of dualism -- matter and form. The theory accounted for the form to be already in the universe, and not an extra entity. Your total energy objection doesn't apply here and does not invalidate, per se, the theory of dualism.

If you reject dualism, don't use total energy or something like that, but use (1) intelligibility -- is it necessary that we account for another substance like form and how is it to be understood as a compound of existence. Or (2) there is no dualism -- one composition, i.e. materialism could account for the mental processes. — L'éléphant

Well I'd think science has a big role in the proof/disproof of dualism, it being the apogee of materialism, no? :chin:

Thanks for the tip though: intelligibility :up: One question: why use comprehensibility as a yardstick? It doesn't make sense to me. It's as if I were to say calculus is incomprehensible to me (it is) and so, calculus is nonsense! :chin:

Well I'd think science has a big role in the proof/disproof of dualism, it being the apogee of materialism, no? :chin: — Agent Smith

Not in the sense that one is creating a philosophical theory that can't be satisfied with science alone. Remember that a philosophical theory is trying to show reality in a difference sense, not the common sensical, scientific sense.

One question: why use comprehensibility as a yardstick? It doesn't make sense to me. It's as if I were to say calculus is incomprehensible to me (it is) and so, calculus is nonsense! :chin: — Agent Smith

Because if you look at any explanation of dualism -- cartesian, aristotelian, platonian, etc. they have to argue for the intelligibility of the substance they just now introduced. How did they (the philosophers themselves) know that there is such as thing as substantial form? Is it accessible by thinkers other than philosophers? Is it accessible by the scientific community? Is it accessible by the common sense? If it is accessible, then it is intelligible. And vice versa.

Not in the sense that one is creating a philosophical theory that can't be satisfied with science alone. Remember that a philosophical theory is trying to show reality in a difference sense, not the common sensical, scientific sense — L'éléphant

What about the necessity for coherence? Any philosophical theory must necessarily jibe with/square with other existing theories, including scientific ones like the 1^st law of thermodynamics, ja? If not, anyone could think up any theory, no matter how discordant it is with the current framework of knowledge.

intelligibility — L'éléphant

Could you explain a bit more about intelligibility? Thanks in advance.