Since Newton at least, physics has not been wrong — Manuel
Yes. My point was just that since it's incomplete, the claim you're making isn't really about science. It's a philosophical bias that's common during the time in which you live. — frank
There's weight to scientific findings. You can't really borrow that weight to say there's a mind independent world.
To some extent it's a hinge proposition that there are mind independent things, but I don't know how much of your behavior really revolves around that hinge. I don't know how differently people behaved 5000 years ago. — frank
What? We can use the James Webb, land on the moon, calculate the age of the universe and the distance of galaxies all on the basis of the little we do know. Is this not real knowledge of the universe even if the science is incomplete? — Manuel
So is there mind-independence in your view, or no? Like, do you believe all these is to the world and the universe are our thoughts about it? That's perfectly fine if it is your view. — Manuel
There's no scientific findings published by Nature that address mind independence. This is an assumption arising from your worldview. I've said this several times now. I'm not sure why it's unclear. — frank
I have the same worldview you do. I'm just clearer on the arbitrariness of it than I think you might be. — frank
The more serious issue is that of explanatory frameworks. You and I have often discussed that, and I seem to recall you often saying that science is really the only credible public framework for such discussion, with other perspectives being designated 'poetic' - noble and edifying but essentially personal. But then, I guess that's part of the cultural dilemma of modernity, of which Chalmers and Dennett are two protagonists. — Wayfarer
I mean since scientific observations are publicly available whereas consciousness is not publicly observable it's hard to see how it could work. — Janus
mean since scientific observations are publicly available whereas consciousness is not publicly observable — Janus
There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. There are only the outward signs associated with being you or me, and that is what is meant by consciousness, as I see it. Even in my investigation into NDEs, it's still the same thing, i.e., you can ask the same questions, and the answers would still be the same. — Sam26
I mean since scientific observations are publicly available whereas consciousness is not publicly observable it's hard to see how it could work. — Janus
There is no basic problem here. All that is required is good honest observations, and this is fundamental to science anyway. — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems to me that if consciousness wasn't publicly observable, then what in the world would it mean to say that someone is conscious? You seem to imply that consciousness is only that which I alone can access. It would have to be at the very least both private and public. The public part being that which allows us to access the concepts and ideas associated with what's happening to us privately. — Sam26
The public part being that which allows us to access the concepts and ideas associated with what's happening to us privately. Without the public part there would be no talking about consciousness, period. — Sam26
If you mean there is no scientific avenue of investigation into these private experiences, that too, seems false to me. We investigate these private experiences all the time in science. To investigate the person (their private experiences) is to investigate consciousness. We can easily collect data on such an investigation, and have collected data. — Sam26
There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. — Sam26
The difference between "good honest observations" of subjective experience and scienitifc observation of the external world is that the latter can be checked and corroborated, while the former cannot. — Janus
How can I know that even my own introspection is accurate? — Janus
You tell me your observations of your internal self, and I compare them with mine. — Metaphysician Undercover
How is this different from sense observations. How can you know that your senses are accurate? — Metaphysician Undercover
Problem is your and my "internal self" are different "objects", whereas our observations of say an apple can be confirmed down to the minutest details. — Janus
But there is a difference between phenomenology and the empirical sciences because in the case of the latter the objects of observation are publicly available, — Janus
Yes, so the fact that our observations of external things can be confirmed down to the "minutest details" only proves that your and my internal self are the same down to the minutest details. — Metaphysician Undercover
When a scientist performs an experiment, only those present have access to observe the "objects" which are observed. Scientific experiments are not publicly available. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not at all; it speaks to the fact that our perceptual organizations are similar enough, and that the minutest details of external objects do not depend on who is observing them. — Janus
Some observations may be available only to those who are trained to know what to look for and what they are looking at, but all scientific observations are publicly available in principle. — Janus
On what basis do you conclude that we can make valid scientific conclusions about the similarity in the rocks but not about the similarity in the internal perceptual organizations? — Metaphysician Undercover
The observations are only made by those participating in the performance of the experiment. Therefore the observations are not publicly available. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think it may be useful to separate the private from the public: on the one hand, an individual's private experience(s) - "what's happening to us privately" - and on the other hand, our public behaviour, including our public language/concepts about consciousness. I agree that "without the public part there would be no talking about consciousness", but I think it is questionable whether our public language/concepts can ever exhaust/capture every nuance of every person's private experience. — Luke
Given that consciousness has both public and private aspects, I disagree. There is only no invisible thing associated with our public behaviour, including our talk about consciousness. — Luke
There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness.
— Sam26
Given that consciousness has both public and private aspects, I disagree. There is only no invisible thing associated with our public behaviour, including our talk about consciousness.
— Luke
I'm not so sure we disagree here. There are private experiences going on all the time, but in order to talk about these private experiences there has to be the public component. I'm referring to the use of the word soul. The religious idea that there is some private thing that represents the soul, i.e., that gives meaning to the concept, is problematic. The use of the word apart from the religious use, is associated with that which animates the body, or the actions of the body. There are obviously unseen things going on. — Sam26
There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. — Sam26
Empirical observations in general, any observation concerning the characteristics of objects of the senses are publicly available. These observations are definitely confirmable. If I am with ten people, looking at a red apple with a yellow stripe, I can ask all those people what unusual feature they see on that apple and predictably they will most likely all agree it is the yellow stripe. — Janus
If I am entertaining a particular thought and I ask you what I am thinking you cannot tell me. That's the difference between private thoughts, feelings and sensations and publicly available objects of the senses. I shouldn't have to point this out to you since it is obviously the case, as attested by everyday experience. — Janus
The public/private distinction breaks down completely when the 'private' part becomes existentially dependent on the public part. — creativesoul
Exactly, in reality, the public is dependent on the private, and we could exchange public and private for external and internal here as well.. That is what Janus denies and refuses to acknowledge. As much as we like to model the private as emergent from the public, thereby making the public prior to the private, "the public" is nothing more than an idea and is therefore fundamentally dependent on the private. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a category mistake. Characteristics of objects "in general" are not publicly available. What is publicly available is particular instances or circumstances. — Metaphysician Undercover
I disagree with both of your approaches for different reasons. I agree with your critique of Janus' position, as it has been stated in this thread. — creativesoul
Of course each observation of an object of sense is particular, and the details of those observations in general are publicly confirmable. — Janus
If I say "This car is made of steel" this assertion can be publicly checked and confirmed or disconfirmed. If I say " This thought I'm having is about a car made of steel" this assertion is not publicly checkable and cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. That, in a nutshell, is all I'm saying. — Janus
if you disagree with what I wrote above, then explain why — Janus
...each observation of an object of sense is particular — Janus
If I say "This car is made of steel" this assertion can be publicly checked and confirmed or disconfirmed. If I say " This thought I'm having is about a car made of steel" this assertion is not publicly checkable and cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. — Janus
It seems to me that both of you are using unnecessarily complex language coupled with inherently inadequate dichotomies to discuss the subject matter. — creativesoul
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.