our consciousness cannot access the physical, neuronal processes underlying it; it can only access periodic reports from such neuronal processes. Eg visual, audio or pain reports.
— Olivier5

Exactly what I've been arguing with Luke. — Isaac

Well, glad that's clarified.

Come to think of it, the original metaphor was made here:

It always baffles me that this this is seen as some coup de grace. "But the study of social constructs is itself just a social construct", "You're using rationality to work out the origin of rationality", "All metaphysics is nonsense is itself metaphysics"...

It's just not the logical flaw people seem to assume it is. I can ask a computer to print out the actual binary of its last calculation. There's no problem at all ... Psychology's models of how the brain works (including that we model the world) is itself just a model of the world (in this case the brain bit of it). So what? What's the killer blow we must now succumb to because of that insight? — Isaac

The killer blow is that: IF the study of social constructs concludes that social constructs are possible, reasonable, useful and improvable (the Collingwood project if I understand well), then there is no problem, but IF one concludes from the study of social constructs that they are on the whole unreasonable fancies, then one has a problem of self-contradiction. Because the study of social constructs is itself a social construct, and if social constructs are fancy, the idea that they are fancy is itself fancy.

Likewise, "all metaphysics is nonsense" is reflexive, and thus it is a self-contradictory statement. You will have recognized the paradox of the liar. We already spoke about it.

And therefore... If models of how the brain works are in themselves just mental models (or social constructs), a model of how the brain works that concludes that mental models and/or social constructs are illusionary, fanciful or epiphenomenal is contradicting itself. Only neurological models that recognise (or better, explain) the utility of conscious human thoughts and social constructs can be asserted without running into internal contradictions.

The point is it is using the CPU to report data about the CPU. That's all. It's presented only in opposition to the claim that we cannot use a model to report on our modelling process. We obviously can. — Isaac

We can stipulate in the code (or add in some parallel code) one or several reporting routines that regularly outputs a certain data set, following certain milestones. So the CPU can be monitored through regular reporting of some data set eg 10 times per second, but one cannot access the actual electric currents inside the CPU that produce these data sets, as they happen. Of course one could hypothetically reconstruct them by parsing together the reported data, but not empirically record the physical events in the CPU. At least not in your random PC. Whether the technology exists in the lab, I am not aware of it.

To my mind this is important because I actually find useful the computer metaphor for the human mind. Not that people are just computers but they are also computers. We human beings can compute, in fact we invented computing in a way, and then taught it to machines.

So what does this mean for the mind-body problem? Maybe that our consciousness cannot access the physical, neuronal processes underlying it; it can only access periodic reports from such neuronal processes. Eg visual, audio or pain reports.

It's a historical fact. You should study history of science, it's fascinating.

Go back to Hacker's quote. This idea that numbers are some sort of magical thing that defies typologies is just absurd. It's all part of the pretense that 'minds are spooky'. Minds are pretty much the only thing we know. Matter defies understanding alright, numbers not so much.

So philosophers then? — Isaac

Science is indeed a by-product of philosophy.

between people.
In order to fix other issues such as poverty and climate change we need to be working together — CallMeDirac

Climate change is the direct consequence of the industrial revolution, itself made possible by scientific, technological and economic developments, a historical process that demonstrably happened during a certain period (18-19th century) and in a certain place (Europe). It's not a problem caused by religion at all, but by capitalism and positivism.

Maybe religions can help solve it but it's an unreasonable expectation in my view.

And a concept is simply a what? And so on, until the whole dictionary hovers without foundation. — norm

This applies to any concept, not just numbers, and thus it is irrelevant to the point I am making about Hacker's quote. To ask what sort of entity is a number is not any more pernicious than to ask what sort of entity is a chair.

the separation caused by religion is the issue. — CallMeDirac

The separation from what?

Atheists don't agree among themselves about much. They (we) have no positive identity, no credo, by definition. I personally think that religion is fine most of the times.

Religion is possibly the worst invention of humankind and it has lasted longer than any other. — CallMeDirac

That sounds oddly religious... You want an atheist inquisition?

But this is as pernicious a question as ‘What sort of entity is a number?’ — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

A number is simply a concept. There's no difficulty that I can see here.

The mind/body problem is insoluble. — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

That sounds both defeatist and strangely preposterous.

Apparently it records CPU usage but not each binary step.

Who invented philosophy then? — Isaac

Philosophers invented science and philosophy. Isaac Newton was a philosopher, he didn't call himself a scientist. Neither did Galileo. Plenty of others. Copernicus. Kepler. — Dharmi

Descartes, Leibniz, Giordano Bruno, Gassendi, Averroes, Avicenna...

Ari-fuckin-stotle.

Ctrl+esc gives me a rundown of the cpu's occupation, — Isaac

It doesn't give you a run down of the detail of its calculations though. To do that, the CPU would need to know what it is calculating while it is calculating. IOW it would need to be self aware.

So I am afraid that this part of your metaphor doesn't work:

I can ask a computer to print out the actual binary of its last calculation. — Isaac

A lot of people: us all. We all do it, including you. You are here for a reason.

computers can use their internal calculation mechanisms to report the state of that same mechanism — Isaac

Your metaphor depends on it, but is that a fact? Can computers describe their own calculations in detail, bit by bit? Or do they only report the results of theses calculations, at points specified in the program? It makes a difference.

. I would trust what people's actions reveal about their beliefs more than what they report their own beliefs to be. — Pantagruel

Okay, point well taken. True that. Roger. My mistake.

So you think scientists invented science, huh? Logic, anyone?

Scientists, as a loose collection, would not even exist in the first place if philosophers had not first carved up a safe space for freedom of inquiry, sometimes exposing themselves to significant risk of punishment in doing so, and if they had not used this space to invent the scientific method.

I haven't read Collingwood so can't comment much on this thread. All I want to say is that the term "belief" summons something consciously assumed true, while the "hidden assumption" vocable is more neutral and I believe more precise here. The danger (so to speak) of these assumptions is in their hiding: they cannot be examined untill they are ferreted out.

I agree with the idea that even the most rabid anti-metaphysician is doing some metaphysics. 0 is a number. Bald is an air style.

RGC's use of "presupposition". — creativesoul

I like the term '"idden assumption". It's better than "belief" imo because these are not really positive beliefs, that we adhere to consciously and defend. They are more like unconscious ideas that shape our examinations but are not themselves examined. To me a belief is something more explicit and stated.

So the same's true of Popper, right? — Isaac

Of course, Popper was influenced by scientists, mainly by QM. I happen to think he should have paid more attention to biologists.

one way system — Isaac

Meaning?

Intersubjectivity.

Some scientists read Popper, argue with Popper, discuss Popper between themselves. The idea of falsifiability (and others) makes its way in the discourse.

Probably. But none of that has anything much to do with whether he had an influence on scientists. — Isaac

Popper defined the boundaries of modern science based on a fairly robust synthesis of Hume's empiricism and Kantian idealism, to simplify a bit. Scientists were influenced alright, whether they like to admit it or not. And whether they are conscious of this influence or not. Don't take take their word for it.

Thomas needs to touch the wound. — Valentinus

Or so the gospel of John says (but not the other three canonical ones). I've read in a book on christian gnostics -- could dig the source if anyone is interested -- that some of them did not believe in the resurrection of Christ in the flesh. They thought it was Jesus appearing to his disciples as a sort of supernatural deity speaking from heavens. A ghost, in other words. This gnostic interpretation of the resurrection as visions of a ghost is consistent with the 'noli me tangere'.

According to the theory, St Thomas was connected to (had evangelized) the gnostics (as evidenced by the gospel of Thomas). The authors of John's gospel would have added the story about Thomas doubting that Jesus had come back in the flesh, touching the wounds himself, and then believing, as a rhetorical weapon against them heretical gnostics.

Kant's house-cleaner — Isaac

Popper, you mean?

Only half a joke, since Popper was Kantian and had an undeniable, modern influence on epistemology and philosophy of science.

They don't feel the need to borrow the intellect of an eighteenth century German. — Isaac

Their beliefs and worldviews might have been influenced by Kant, unbeknown to them. Scientist do not live outside of society and they are influenced by the culture in which they live.

So, did it end as Rorty said or what's on the roadmap for the next paradigm shift in philosophical endeavors? — Shawn

I would wish that more philosophers stop hiding behind language, and seek and defend truth against all the lies.

what Hacking calls the death of meaning at the hands of Quine, Wittgenstein, Davidson and Feyerabend — Shawn

That's BS of course, meaning never died. You listed five guys who mistook their confusion for philosophy, that's all. Pretenders. We need to forget those clowns and go back to serious, intellectually honest philosophy.

The subject/question is what can we demonstrate to be the most reliable source of information about the world? No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism. — Tom Storm

You are basically an information management system, which is precisely why you need reliable information about the world. A stone wouldn't. — Olivier5

... Let me rephrase. You are, among other things, an information management system, as all living creature, which is precisely why you need reliable information about the world. A stone wouldn't.

People (and other species) are probably more than just information management systems. The "information paradigm" is just that: a human, limited way if seeing life. An angle.

Essentialism is a bitch.

Okay so you are arguing from a position of ignorance, saying in essence "I don't know therefore nobody will ever know".

I have no problem with the suggestion, but it's only a theory, and does nothing to explain the origin of RNA or any ability to reproduce in isolation. — Gary Enfield

And does your theory explain the origin of RNA, pray tell?

The chemistry described says how some chemical bonds can be reformed, but is says nothing about how sterile chemicals - single molecules - identify what might be missing and then go looking for the appropriate piece of code that is missing in order to replicate it (not a simple process in itself).

You just admit that the enzymes are observed to undertake a series of logical steps, adapting their behaviour, but offer no suggestion as to what guides them - when there is no known chemistry or computer to undertake the logical process involved. — Gary Enfield

But there is plenty of that. DNA and their proteinic maintenance machinery has be used to make computers. We come across new mechanisms everyday and we try and understand them. Sometimes it looks pretty much "designed" or "intentional", until you discover how it works.

Then, something funny happens: we can better understand how those biological systems can fail, and how we can repair them when they do.

The issue I have with intelligent design, is that life as we know it fails all the sodding time. These macromolecules can run haywire. Organisms get sick and die as a result. It's been known to happen. I would expect an intelligent designer to do better than that.

the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed to come up with an alternate evolutionary mechanism (they are not even close) is not a misrepresentation by me. — Gary Enfield

You haven't addressed the RNA world hypothesis, though...

As in the examples which I did quote, these molecules which, (according to the Laws of Physics and Chemistry), should just do one thing in an inevitable way, are clearly shown to do more than one thing, and even seem to be working out puzzles. They break the rules. — Gary Enfield

DNA repair mechanisms - particularly Homologous Recombination — Gary Enfield

Homologous recombination does not break any rule. Rather, it creates a new rule, which is that diploid organisms -- those having two genomes instead of one; two sets of chromosomes, one inherited from the mother and the other from the father of the organism -- can repair one broken chromosome by copying the corresponding section of the other. More generally, in diploids, genetic information can move from one chromosome to the other homologous chromosome in the same cell. This is critical especially during gamete production, as another tool for shuffling the genetic cards, but also in repair DNA in all cells.

This provides an excellent example for where I disagree with the thesis that life breaks the laws of physics. It doesn't, really. What it does is add new rules. Life creates its own set of rules, in addition to those of physics, as it moves along.

You heard of "eat or be eaten"? That's a rule of life that was created the moment one species started to eat another. Predation is a great energy acquisition strategy and once it appeared somewhere, it quickly became a universal feature of the life game, shaping defence and attack strategies by the millions.

Note that predation does not contradict the laws of physics. Rather, it means absolutely nothing outside of life. It is made possible and conceivable only by life itself. You could say that black holes 'eat' stars but it would be nothing more than a metaphor.

Biology does not contradict physics and chemistry. It adds to them, quite a lot in fact. What it adds cannot be understood with the conceptual tools of physics but it does not contradict them.

These are single molecules without any other perceived interaction that could cause a different outcome — Gary Enfield

That's confused verbiage. Give me an actual example or reference text.

A similar problem arises with the rules of the genetic code: they cannot be measured and cannot be reduced to physical quantities, so what are they?

A lot of measurement is done on the genetic code, eg one can compute the genetic distance between two organisms and derive from that a crude estimate of when was their last common ancestor. Similarly, one can measure the number of words in a novel or count the amount of bits in a computer programme. Codes are measurable alright, with sui generis variables.

The subject/question is what can we demonstrate to be the most reliable source of information about the world? No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism. — Tom Storm

You are basically an information management system, which is precisely why you need reliable information about the world. A stone wouldn't.

Not sure Barbieri goes there. You have a quote? — Olivier5

Maybe you mean when he says that life = matter + energy + information. This implies that biology has some exclusivity on information, which is incorrect. As Aristotle found, there's no matter without form, and thus without information.

Inanimate matter as we know it has structure, and novel structures emerge spontaneously from it all the time, snowflakes being the classic example.

And like snowflake are all unique in their shape, in their morphology, biological information is extremely diverse and expresses itself in physical forms or shapes, generally produced by some protein folding. The term biochemists use is steric. It's about the shapes of macromolecules, central to their effectiveness. But steric effects exist in inorganic chemistry too.

Life did not invent information, it found it already there all around, as the geometric shapes of things, and how these shapes can do certain things that other shapes can't. It used information, managed it, magnified it, mirrored it infinitely, gave it meaning, and ultimately transcended it with consciousness. But it did not really create a new physical force.

And also defends the point of view that the emergence of life really is the emergence of a completely novel kind of order in the Universe that can't be fully explained in terms of physics and chemistry alone. — Wayfarer

(emphasis added)

Not sure Barbieri goes there. You have a quote? To me, a determinist universe could not engender life, because nothing really new happens in a determinist universe. But QM points to an indeteminist universe, open to radical novelty. A universe where a lot more things can happen than just the same old billard balls rolling eternally on the same old carpet...

Nothing which the chemistry describes in chemical terms breaks the laws of physics and chemistry — Gary Enfield

Okay so you are retracting your earlier wild claim that "these molecules do seem to break known principles that we apply to Matter/Energy." Macromolecules do not break any principles that I know of.

The variable series of activities which these things deploy to achieve a predictable complex outcome, (eg. DNA repair) rather than an arbitrary outcome has yet to be explained, and until materialism can do this - it cannot claim to have proven its case by any means. — Gary Enfield

Materialism (at least in it's eliminative, reductionist form) is self-contradictory, and therefore logically false.

I agree that reductionists in particular fail to account for the "information revolution" that biology has seen for the past 70 years. To reduce biology to billard balls rolling on a carpet is to not take what we've learnt seriously. Rest assured that most biologists agree.

It doesn't mean the gods designed us. Maybe they did, maybe not. If any god designed us, the guy was a slow learner. It took Him ages...

To me it just means philosophers need to take modern science into more serious consideration, and admit to the importance of information management as a key dimension of life.