I'm confused. Wouldn't that dualism be denied by any science that you can name?My contention is that some kind of dualism is more scientific than materialism — lorenzo sleakes
This is an interesting thing to say.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
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
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.Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle — lorenzo sleakes
My contention is that some kind fo dualism — lorenzo sleakes
Consciousness appears to be something we can only observe from the inside — lorenzo sleakes
But the view that physical processes generate consciousness but consciousness has no independent effect back on physical processes is the same. — lorenzo sleakes
No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. — lorenzo sleakes
then that claim can be tested, falsified and verified. — lorenzo sleakes
We are discussing consciousness so it must have some ability to speak for itself. — lorenzo sleakes
Meaning, it's not a thing. Especially as all the cog-sci evidence suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain. — Garrett Travers
Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle — lorenzo sleakes
It has to be private to avoid an infinite regress of observers observing observers — lorenzo sleakes
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
Consciousness appears to be something we can only observe from the inside. It is private. It has to be private — lorenzo sleakes
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
No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. — 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 theMy contention is that some kind fo dualism is more scientific than materialism. — lorenzo sleakes
Not a function. A property that can't be explained. — EugeneW
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 — Garrett Travers
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
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
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. — 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. — Garrett Travers
:100: :up: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
Reductionism is a metaphysical position — T Clark
You are a reductionist — T Clark
Metaphysical positions are not verifiable by empirical means — T Clark
You attempt to verify reductionism by empirical means in many of your arguments. — T Clark
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? — EugeneW
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.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. — L'éléphant
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.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
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.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
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
intelligibility — L'éléphant
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.