• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

Tommy Jeppesen said:
The problem is that you can't determine the different probabilities between being in a "fair" reality and being a Boltzmann brain without running into Agrippa's trilemma. You are assuming that your experience can tell you something about the probability, i.e. your experiences are "fair", but then you are begging the question, because the question is: Are your experiences "fair" or that of a Boltzmann brain. And you can't start by assuming that reality is "fair", when you ask if reality is "fair"?
Click to expand...
So it's solipsism approached from a different direction.

Yes, if we can't trust our senses, it is theoretically possible that only I/you/someone exist(s), that we are a brain in a vat, a thermodynamic anomaly, the dream of an extradimensional squid monster...

How does Boltzmann's thermodynamic approach offer us a new perspective?

And if we can't make any assumptions based on the feedback our minds receive from what appears to be the external world, then we have no reason to assume we even exist in the first place, and it all turns into infinitely regressing navelgazing.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nor can I observe an electron directly, but there are well-known techniques to detect them and study their properties. The fact that I don't know what it's like to experience being an electron is of no particular importance, and neither is the fact that I can't experience living someone else's happy life. Both are nevertheless amenable to study.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, I didn't answer that in a correct manner, because you pointed out in an indirect manner, what I left out. An electron is objective, a happy life is subjective.

A scientist look at a human saying - I have a happy life - isn't looking at something which is objective and the scientist can't replicate that using science.
It gets worse with morality and ethics.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
So it's solipsism approached from a different direction.

Yes, if we can't trust our senses, it is theoretically possible that only I/you/someone exist(s), that we are a brain in a vat, a thermodynamic anomaly, the dream of an extradimensional squid monster...

How does Boltzmann's thermodynamic approach offer us a new perspective?

And if we can't make any assumptions based on the feedback our minds receive from what appears to be the external world, then we have no reason to assume we even exist in the first place, and it all turns into infinitely regressing navelgazing.
Click to expand...

Correct, Knowledge in the strong sense is not possible and is a fantasy/idea in philosophy.
You believe that reality is as it appears to you or you believe otherwise, but you can't give evidence for either of these cases.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, I didn't answer that in a correct manner, because you pointed out in an indirect manner, what I left out. An electron is objective, a happy life is subjective.
Click to expand...

It's still possible in principle to measure happiness and to draw conclusions from variations in its level in specific demographics. It's not a particularly precise science, but your view of it as an imponderable that social scientists simply throw their hands up in despair at measuring is completely at odds with reality.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I've always thought that one of the best arguments against solipsism is that my memory isn't good enough to get all the details right.

Dave
Click to expand...
Your conscious memory sure, however, what does your unconscious memory recall?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's still possible in principle to measure happiness and to draw conclusions from variations in its level in specific demographics. It's not a particularly precise science, but your view of it as an imponderable that social scientists simply throw their hands up in despair at measuring is completely at odds with reality.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, you can do that on a large scale because we humans to a varying degree share similarities, but the moment it turns into morality and ethics, it goes puff. Science hasn't solve the it-ought problem.

Answer me this using science: Is it wrong to kill another human? Notice I didn't say murder.
 
David Mo said:
Can anyone tell me in what comment of this thread has been "consciousness" defined?

Thank you.
Click to expand...


I offered a definition in post 267. It is not a generally accepted one and for that or other reasons you might disagree with it, of course.

It's best read in the context of the whole post, but if you can't be bothered...
It's the inclusion of the self in the ongoing narrative constructed from sensory input and memory that causes, or constitutes, consciousness.
 
Myriad said:
I offered a definition in post 267. It is not a generally accepted one and for that or other reasons you might disagree with it, of course.

It's best read in the context of the whole post, but if you can't be bothered...
It's the inclusion of the self in the ongoing narrative constructed from sensory input and memory that causes, or constitutes, consciousness.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
Here we go
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The problem is that you can't determine the different probabilities between being in a "fair" reality and being a Boltzmann brain without running into Agrippa's trilemma. You are assuming that your experience can tell you something about the probability, i.e. your experiences are "fair", but then you are begging the question, because the question is: Are your experiences "fair" or that of a Boltzmann brain. And you can't start by assuming that reality is "fair", when you ask if reality is "fair"?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "fair" in the above, I'm assuming it is some non-standard usage?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Answer me this using science: Is it wrong to kill another human? Notice I didn't say murder.
Click to expand...

This has got rather a long way from your original request for evidence that happiness is a scientific term, which has now been provided to you. I note that you don't seem to think that this new information you requested should inform your conclusions in any way at all, on which I feel there is no need for comment.

Dave
 
Darat said:
What do you mean by "fair" in the above, I'm assuming it is some non-standard usage?
Click to expand...

Astronomer William Keel explains:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
Click to expand...
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.. p. 2.

I use fair in a similar, reality is "fair" and you are not a Boltzmann brain.
 
Dave Rogers said:
This has got rather a long way from your original request for evidence that happiness is a scientific term, which has now been provided to you. I note that you don't seem to think that this new information you requested should inform your conclusions in any way at all, on which I feel there is no need for comment.

Dave
Click to expand...

So God is a scientific concept, because we can observe humans using the word "God"?

If happiness is scientific, explain how I replicate your experiment.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, in an indirect manner you have a point, but not in the sense that you can observe a happy life. Happy is first person experience.
Click to expand...

Happy is not a first person experience - it is both a public and private behaviour. I can tell when another person is happy, they can tell when I am happy.

(Had to rewrite the following several times to try and get the tone right.)

If you think happiness is only a first person experience can I suggest you may have a consciousness that is different to the majority of other humans* as I'd say most of us have no problems in observing happiness in other people as well as in ourselves.

*I really don't mean this in a demeaning way, it's just that since last year when I realised I experience an "inner" world quite differently to the majority of people I'm much more aware that some miscommunications may come about because we do have very different "internal" experiences.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Further you can't answer ynot's example as to whether it would be wrong to jump off the 20th floor of building or leave the floor through the window.
Click to expand...

The only reason that "science" can't answer such a question is that the question although looking simple e.g. "Is it wrong for him to exit via the window" in fact contains a myriad of accepted assumptions. If we unpack such questions to expose the assumptions they become answerable by "science" i.e. in an objective manner.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Never said it was.


Unless you can show why its basic assumption is correct, no.
Click to expand...

Can you show that the basic assumption that you can trust your senses is correct?

I am going for that neither assumption is correct. I am a skeptic.
 
Darat said:
...
The only reason that "science" can't answer such a question is that the question although looking simple e.g. "Is it wrong for him to exit via the window" in fact contains a myriad of accepted assumptions. If we unpack such questions to expose the assumptions they become answerable by "science" i.e. in an objective manner.
Click to expand...

I hate when this happens. Because now we have to "nitpick" the word "objective. And no, you can't answer that in an objective manner without a first person subjective bias.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Can you show that the basic assumption that you can trust your senses is correct?

I am going for that neither assumption is correct. I am a skeptic.
Click to expand...

You asked "Do you want to discuss/debate whether it can be know if a Boltzmann brain is possible?"

My answer remains no unless you can show its assumptions to be correct.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So God is a scientific concept, because we can observe humans using the word "God"?
Click to expand...

No; that means it's a linguistic concept. Religiosity, however, is a scientific concept, because we can study its demographics using similar tools to those with which we can study happiness.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
If happiness is scientific, explain how I replicate your experiment.
Click to expand...

Since I haven't actually proposed one, your question is meaningless.

What you're engaged in here is what, I think, Argumemnon likes to describe as a Denial Of Knowledge attack. Please feel free to carry on, but I'm bored with it now.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom