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

[David Mo]

Strongly disagree, we can make a lot of accurate predictions of people's behaviours and these are repeatable.

Strongly, you are in a mistake.

The unpredictability of conduct is a fact recognized by almost all psychologists and psychiatrists, not an opinion. Minority Report is a science fiction story, you know. If psychology could predict, smoking rehabilitation programs would be near 100% successful and opinion polls would -almost- never fail. Even with relatively simple training programs with animals there are always unpredictable behaviors.
Another thing is the explanation you want to give. The most common among psychologists is the following:

Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable due to the huge complexity of environmental, mental and biological influences upon even the simplest behavior (i. e. all extraneous variables cannot be controlled) (https://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html).​

 

[Porpoise of Life]

If your TV doesn't "look" at anything, how does it receive its information?

I'm sure you're being facetious, but to get back to the point, the analogy is accurate. We use our sensors to detect electromagnetic information which is decoded and assembled into an image of 'out there'. A TV uses its sensors to detect electromagnetic information which is decoded and assembled into an image of 'out there'. The process is identical, yet the result is completely different.

But neither of them is more or less real than the other. And you claimed that light sound and form exist only in our brains.
Our perceptions of those things are, and our categorization of them is based on our perception, but moving air exists, and photons exist, independently from any brain.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have noticed that, when I am looking at it. I have never noticed it looking at anything. But following caveman1917's post I may have to look closer.

"If you gaze long into a TV, the TV will also gaze into you."

- Nieotzsche

 

[baron]

But neither of them is more or less real than the other.

Exactly right.

And you claimed that light sound and form exist only in our brains.

Also correct, at least as we understand them. When we talk about 'light' we don't tend to refer to a tiny bandwidth of electromagnetic waveform potential, rather to something that's bright and allows us to see our way around. This is an entirely arbitrary definition, yet it's used definitively. If our senses were expanded so we could see more of the electromagnetic spectrum, we wouldn't even have a word for light, because light would be everywhere at all times, even when we closed our eyes. We would have no notion of dark other than as a non-experiential concept (and even then... would we? I'm not so sure).

Our perceptions of those things are, and our categorization of them is based on our perception, but moving air exists, and photons exist, independently from any brain.

No they do not. Photons do not exist independent of observation of their effects, and neither does any other subatomic particle. What does exist is a sea of potential, governed by quantum laws of probability. We commonly refer to photons and electrons as 'things' that ' move' and even 'bounce', but this is simply terminology. These things do not happen, that's what I'm trying to get across.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

No they do not. Photons do not exist independent of observation of their effects, and neither does any other subatomic particle. What does exist is a sea of potential, governed by quantum laws of probability. We commonly refer to photons and electrons as 'things' that ' move' and even 'bounce', but this is simply terminology. These things do not happen, that's what I'm trying to get across.

Well, then 'looking' and 'thinking' and 'our minds' aren't real either, and were not even having this discussion
Unless you want to argue that there's something special about minds that can't be explained using the laws of physics as we know them.

 

[David Mo]

Whoaaa there!!

Heisenberg might have worked on the German A-Bomb development, but he was not a Nazi. In fact he was outspoken about the need to keep the education of scientists under the auspices of the Academic Community and to not politicize it. He was also criticised by the Deutsche Physik (German Physics) movement because he openly taught about the role of Jewish scientists, and this led to him being investigated by the SS.

For this, he came under a fair bit of criticism from Nazi Party media. At one stage, Himmler called Heisenberg a White Jew who should be made to disappear.

German? yes (and so was Einstein)
Nazi? Definitely not!
[/off topic]

I think the topic of Heisenberg's colaborationism is under discussion. Perhaps he was not a nazy but he made some efforts to give them the atomic bomb. It is true, a nuance. [off topic] Anyway I hope you can recognize an irony.

 

[David Mo]

In the sense of (2) as well as the first part of (1), without necessarily being short-lived.

I did expect that.

But even with your particular definition, you will have to recognize that an opinion that lasts for centuries is more than just "arbitrary". It has some reasons to exist. Christianity has been maintained for centuries because it was both a way of escaping reality and a successfuly form of domination. Pure ideology.

Materialism will also have its reasons, which you will tell me below. I am sure.

 

[baron]

Well, then 'looking' and 'thinking' and 'our minds' aren't real either, and were not even having this discussion

It's not that they're not real, more that they're not what we think they are.

Unless you want to argue that there's something special about minds that can't be explained using the laws of physics as we know them.

Well, nobody has come remotely close to explaining the theory of mind via the laws of physics, that's indisputable. On the other hand there is nothing 'special' about humans, in terms of being outside the natural order of things, and anybody who suggests otherwise is straying into the realm of faith-based religion. I include some scientists in this, most of whom (who expressed a view) up until comparatively recently maintained that only humans can be conscious, an assertion as unsupported by evidence as any religious claim.

 

[The Norseman]

Strongly, you are in a mistake.

The unpredictability of conduct is a fact recognized by almost all psychologists and psychiatrists, not an opinion. Minority Report is a science fiction story, you know. If psychology could predict, smoking rehabilitation programs would be near 100% successful and opinion polls would -almost- never fail. Even with relatively simple training programs with animals there are always unpredictable behaviors.
Another thing is the explanation you want to give. The most common among psychologists is the following:

Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable due to the huge complexity of environmental, mental and biological influences upon even the simplest behavior (i. e. all extraneous variables cannot be controlled) (https://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html).​

This is a great example of a strawman. Darat said, "... we can make a lot of accurate predictions..." and you return with, "Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable..."

Even ignoring 'full understanding' and 'full control,' did Darat ever say or imply anything about 'full prediction?'

 

[The Norseman]

It's not that they're not real, more that they're not what we think they are.



Well, nobody has come remotely close to explaining the theory of mind via the laws of physics, that's indisputable. On the other hand there is nothing 'special' about humans, in terms of being outside the natural order of things, and anybody who suggests otherwise is straying into the realm of faith-based religion. I include some scientists in this, most of whom (who expressed a view) up until comparatively recently maintained that only humans can be conscious, an assertion as unsupported by evidence as any religious claim.

"The theory of mind"? Just weasel words meant to sound rational and knowable. Do you think you could give a comprehensive answer when asked to explain the theory of god?

 

[baron]

"The theory of mind"? Just weasel words meant to sound rational and knowable.

Or, to those with a whit of knowledge, a well-known scientific conceptual framework used extensively in psychiatry and mental cognition.

Do you think you could give a comprehensive answer when asked to explain the theory of god?

Try it.

 

[David Mo]

This is a great example of a strawman. Darat said, "... we can make a lot of accurate predictions..." and you return with, "Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable..."

Even ignoring 'full understanding' and 'full control,' did Darat ever say or imply anything about 'full prediction?'

I am afraid your interpretation of my comment is not correct. "Full prediction" were not my words. They are Saul McLeod's who I quoted as an example of a theory about why psychology does not have the same scientific level of prediction and explanation as the natural sciences. Which is an obvious fact. Of course it is possible to predict some things about human behaviour, but in a much more vague way -the formal level of the natural sciences is much more complex- and with a much lower proportion of success. This establishes a substantial difference between physical and psychological facts. To claim that this difference justifies something like a substantial dualism is something I have already rejected in my previous commentary. But it is not a comfortable assert for positivism neither.

 

[Darat]

Strongly, you are in a mistake.

The unpredictability of conduct is a fact recognized by almost all psychologists and psychiatrists, not an opinion. Minority Report is a science fiction story, you know. If psychology could predict, smoking rehabilitation programs would be near 100% successful and opinion polls would -almost- never fail. Even with relatively simple training programs with animals there are always unpredictable behaviors.
Another thing is the explanation you want to give. The most common among psychologists is the following:

Full understanding, prediction and control in psychology is probably unobtainable due to the huge complexity of environmental, mental and biological influences upon even the simplest behavior (i. e. all extraneous variables cannot be controlled) (https://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html).​

My statement was not a universal statement I did not mean that we can make 100% accurate predictions of someone every behaviour without fail. But we can definitely make repeatable predictions about someone's behaviour in many situations.

 

[Darat]

I am afraid your interpretation of my comment is not correct. "Full prediction" were not my words. They are Saul McLeod's who I quoted as an example of a theory about why psychology does not have the same scientific level of prediction and explanation as the natural sciences. Which is an obvious fact. Of course it is possible to predict some things about human behaviour, but in a much more vague way -the formal level of the natural sciences is much more complex- and with a much lower proportion of success. This establishes a substantial difference between physical and psychological facts. To claim that this difference justifies something like a substantial dualism is something I have already rejected in my previous commentary. But it is not a comfortable assert for positivism neither.

The natural sciences don't have this infallibility you seem to claim for them. The models they use may give consistent results but when you you run actual experiments in the real world you will find that the myriad complexities of the real world will screw up your experiments time and time again.

 

[The Norseman]

Or, to those with a whit of knowledge

It's useless trying to interact with you with your casual insults. Bye.

 

[The Norseman]

I am afraid your interpretation of my comment is not correct. "Full prediction" were not my words. They are Saul McLeod's who I quoted as an example of a theory about why psychology does not have the same scientific level of prediction and explanation as the natural sciences. Which is an obvious fact. Of course it is possible to predict some things about human behaviour, but in a much more vague way -the formal level of the natural sciences is much more complex- and with a much lower proportion of success. This establishes a substantial difference between physical and psychological facts. To claim that this difference justifies something like a substantial dualism is something I have already rejected in my previous commentary. But it is not a comfortable assert for positivism neither.

I didn't say they were your words, but I did explain the reason I chose the quote. It makes more sense now with your explanation so thank you for that. Though as you wrote originally it was not an accurate framing of what Darat said (which he has now also confirmed).

 

[David Mo]

My statement was not a universal statement I did not mean that we can make 100% accurate predictions of someone every behaviour without fail. But we can definitely make repeatable predictions about someone's behaviour in many situations.

The natural sciences don't have this infallibility you seem to claim for them. The models they use may give consistent results but when you you run actual experiments in the real world you will find that the myriad complexities of the real world will screw up your experiments time and time again.

I didn't say they were your words, but I did explain the reason I chose the quote. It makes more sense now with your explanation so thank you for that. Though as you wrote originally it was not an accurate framing of what Darat said (which he has now also confirmed).

Of course, science is not infallible. Therefore I wrote “nearly” and “almost”. But prediction in natural sciences is much higher than psychology. If the rate of prediction in natural sciences were similar to psychology our technological world would be impossible. I assure you that I wouldn’t take a plane. Therefore no sensible psychologist would say that he is using the hypothetical-deductive method. It is not even clear that psychology resorts laws instead of inductive generalizations in huge areas of human behaviour. Watson’s claim that he was able to make thieves, scholars, priests or killers with children in the appropriate circumstances is generally considered a boast today.

Because all of these, dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim. This is a philosophical debate.

 

[baron]

It's useless trying to interact with you with your casual insults. Bye.

The standard hypocritical response when proven wrong. You jump into an exchange, grab a tiny section of my post solely in order to score points, state I am using weasel words to make me appear knowledgeable and rational, then when I point out those 'weasel words' actually describe an established scientific principle you flounce off as if you've been wronged.

 

[The Norseman]

The standard hypocritical response when proven wrong. You jump into an exchange, grab a tiny section of my post solely in order to score points, state I am using weasel words to make me appear knowledgeable and rational, then when I point out those 'weasel words' actually describe an established scientific principle you flounce off as if you've been wronged.

I quoted your insult so you can pretend you are pure as the driven snow, but it ain't fooling anyone. And since I accept that I make mistakes or are wrong when it's warranted, I don't bother to try to score points. I'm not that arrogant.

 

[baron]

I quoted your insult so you can pretend you are pure as the driven snow, but it ain't fooling anyone. And since I accept that I make mistakes or are wrong when it's warranted, I don't bother to try to score points. I'm not that arrogant.

It's good that you accept you make mistakes. You should have no problem, then, in admitting that 'the Theory of Mind' is not a bunch of 'weasel words' I invented to make myself appear 'rational and knowledgeable', but an established scientific theory. If you a) admit you were wrong and b) apologise for your unwarranted insult I'll be happy to apologise for mine.