The relationship between science and materialism

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul

Think along these lines:

If you are going to redefine mental/mind as "objective and 3rd-person" then all I am going to do is invent a new word to refer to the subjective things. This has, of course, already been done. It is why people use the word "qualia" - precisely to stop people from abusing the word "mental" as you are trying to do. If it wasn't for materialists attempting this futile method of defending their beliefs, there would be no need for the word "qualia". If you claim minds exists and qualia do not then you are back to eliminativism.

At what point is the penny going to drop?

Geoff

 

[69dodge]

JustGeoff, if it's obvious that consciousness isn't physics, why isn't it just as obvious that consciousness isn't maths?

What do you expect from an explanation of consciousness? What do you mean by "explanation"? Personally, I'd be happy if I knew which mental experiences resulted from which brain processes. What more do you want?

I don't mean that rhetorically, as if to say that you shouldn't want anything more. If you do want more, that's fine. But can you tell me what it is that you do want? I can't think of anything else that an explanation of consciousness could provide.

 

[chriswl]

Science is incomplete, not in synch with itself and almost entirely lacking in stable philosophical foundations, despite the best efforts of Popper et all. This is another of the myths propagated by scientific materialism. Science is supposed to be a "unified body of truth". Like hell it is. As for it being "complete" - I have no idea what you mean.

How can you contrive to be so confused about something so simple? Science just describes the regularities we see in the phenomena we perceive (empiricism). The physical world is the abstract description that results from this. So there are no phenomena that cannot in principle have a scientific description (naturalism). What on earth is the problem?

As for consciousness, this is not an empirical object that is perceived, it is the implied "thing" that is doing the perceiving. But thinking of it as a thing is what gets us into difficulties. It is just part of what perception is. And perception is impossible without something to perceive. And the something we perceive (lifeworld) may as well be identical with the physical world, because the physical world represents everything we know about the lifeworld. The one can stand in for the other with no loss of information.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul

Proof by loud proclamation doesn't count.

It isn't proof by loud proclamation. It is a Reductio Ad Absurdum. It is proof by reducing your opponents position to an absurd statement or an absurd definition. So it counts.

You don't get it. There is no reason why I have to prove to you (empirically) that (A) isn't the same as (B) unless (A) is understood and recognised as a synonym of (B). If they are generally defined, understood and recognised (with good reason) as being different, then the onus is on YOU, not me, to defend your claim.

-------------

No one is saying that the concept of the brain is the same thing as the concept of consciousness. That would be silly.

Good. The concept of consciousness is shot through with subjectivity. The concept of the brain is not.

These are arguments about words are pointless. You have two choices

Choice 1) Admit that there are things which are inherently subjective in nature
Choice 2) Deny it.

If you choose (2) then you are an eliminativist and I will not argue with you, since it's already an absurd position.

If you choose (1) then I don't care what you call these things. You can call them "mental" or you can call them "subjective" or you can call them "qualia". Whatever you call them, my arguments will then go through and the proof has been supplied. However, what will happen is that at the point where you should put your hands up and admit that the proof has been supplied you will go straight back to denying that the subjective things exist or once more try to redefine them as objective, having forgotten that this was the exact position that you have already been forced to move from and that you had already agreed that subjective things really do exist.

Then I will come back next year and it will be claimed that no proof against materialism has been supplied.

"If sheep aren't saucepans, then materialism is false. Sheep aren't saucepans. Materialism is false."

Yup, that is the structure of your argument:

Simple, isn't it? Yet the materialists don't get it. It just "bounces" off them. They do not understand that you can't start from your conclusion and redefine all the terms until they find a starting position which leads to their conclusion, regardless of whether or not the terms are still usefull for what they were invented for!

Unfortunately, no one is claiming that brains are consciousness.

NO! They are claiming that "brain processes" are consciousness. And they think this makes a difference!

What people are suggesting is that brain function results in events we call consciousness.

"results in events"....?

Meaning what, precisely? Are the physical events the consciousness? Why on earth do you think this is an explanation of subjectivity? All you are doing (still, four years later....) is trying to define the mental in terms of physical things and then wondering why people don't accept this is an intelligible explanation of subjectivity!

Similar to computer hardware resulting in events we call computation. Yet, for some reason, we don't have to spend time masturbating over whether computation is a fundamental existent.

Some reason? Hmmmm. I wonder what that could be? After all, it's SO HARD to figure out the difference between a computation and a subjective experience......

Now do you care to show the logical proof that consciousness can't be the result of brain function?

It is right in front of you. All you have to do is open your eyes.

"What Proof? I can't see it!"

 

[Q-Source]

OK. In that case I reject his idea that science is merely a language game.

You just understand it. Science is still the best and unique way to explain the physical world. But it is useless to explain why I love staring a beautiful landscape or why I prefer some kind of music.

 

[Piggy]

Hi, JustGoeff.

You're right, this thread isn't quite what I intend to post. When I do get my ducks in a row, I'll post the link on the Husserl thread.

There are 3 delays for me. First, I have to get clear on some of the philosophical positions. Second, I have to find specific references to supply in the OP to demonstrate my position. Third, I have to carefully word the OP so that there's at least some hope of the thread not degenerating into a meme-maze, as always seems to happen when philosophy gets involved.

Meanwhile, the d**n lawnmower won't start!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JustGeoff, if it's obvious that consciousness isn't physics, why isn't it just as obvious that consciousness isn't maths?

It is obvious that consciousness isn't maths. Mathematical entities are in no way subjective. That's why I need to redefine Zero as something else.

What do you expect from an explanation of consciousness? What do you mean by "explanation"?

I can be very specific about that. What I want is an explanation of the relationship between (and the origin of) the difference between 1st-person and 3rd-person, between subjective and objective, betweem mental and physical. And I want it to be an explanation that actually explains something rather than an explanation that merely asserts that the subjective things "are really objective things", if onlu I had the imagination to see why. Those aren't explanations. They are attempts to explain the problem away without offering an explanation.

Personally, I'd be happy if I knew which mental experiences resulted from which brain processes.

Interesting, but in the context of this debate about as useful as stamp collecting. We all agree that the correlation of which you speak exists (that is, apart from the eliminativists who deny there are any such thing as mental experiences and therefore there is no correlation).

What more do you want?

I want an explanation of the relationship between subjective and objective. I do NOT want an explanation of why, actually, no explanation is needed, especially if that non-explanation consists of defining subjective to be objective.

Geoff

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not defining science to be a language game. Defining what science actually is is harder than that. What I am saying is that we use a specific sort of language, with an understood set of rules, when we are speaking in scientific language - when we speak as scientists. There can be a language game of science (or, strictly speaking, scientific materialism) without science being "merely a language game".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

f you are going to redefine mental/mind as "objective and 3rd-person" then all I am going to do is invent a new word to refer to the subjective things. This has, of course, already been done. It is why people use the word "qualia" - precisely to stop people from abusing the word "mental" as you are trying to do. If it wasn't for materialists attempting this futile method of defending their beliefs, there would be no need for the word "qualia". If you claim minds exists and qualia do not then you are back to eliminativism.

Geoff, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about anymore, so I think I'll bow out. You're starting to accuse people of being stupid because they won't capitulate.

I want to know why I'm to have philosophical angst attacks because the mental must be something special vis a vis the brain, whereas I'm not supposed to concern myself whether computation must be something special vis a vis the computer.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Choice 1) Admit that there are things which are inherently subjective in nature
Choice 2) Deny it.

I admit it.

If you choose (1) then I don't care what you call these things. You can call them "mental" or you can call them "subjective" or you can call them "qualia". Whatever you call them, my arguments will then go through and the proof has been supplied. However, what will happen is that at the point where you should put your hands up and admit that the proof has been supplied you will go straight back to denying that the subjective things exist or once more try to redefine them as objective, having forgotten that this was the exact position that you have already been forced to move from and that you had already agreed that subjective things really do exist.

What proof?

"results in events"....?

Meaning what, precisely? Are the physical events the consciousness? Why on earth do you think this is an explanation of subjectivity? All you are doing (still, four years later....) is trying to define the mental in terms of physical things and then wondering why people don't accept this is an intelligible explanation of subjectivity!

Yes, I'm proposing that the physical events are the inner experiences that we call consciousness. Of course it's not an explanation yet, because we don't know much about how it works. But this is laughable, since saying some crud about zero and nothingness isn't an explanation, either.

But it doesn't matter what I'm proposing. You are screaming that it can't possibly be, yet providing no proof. Why don't you stop screaming until you have a proof?

Some reason? Hmmmm. I wonder what that could be? After all, it's SO HARD to figure out the difference between a computation and a subjective experience......

Really? Okay, explain it to me.

It is right in front of you. All you have to do is open your eyes.

Proof by picture of cute ostrich.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can be very specific about that. What I want is an explanation of the relationship between (and the origin of) the difference between 1st-person and 3rd-person, between subjective and objective, betweem mental and physical. And I want it to be an explanation that actually explains something rather than an explanation that merely asserts that the subjective things "are really objective things", if onlu I had the imagination to see why. Those aren't explanations. They are attempts to explain the problem away without offering an explanation.

No one is attempting to explain the problem away except you, by burying it the Zero thingie.

~~ Paul

 

[LW]

I can be very specific about that. What I want is an explanation of the relationship between (and the origin of) the difference between 1st-person and 3rd-person,

1st-person: a brain process that happens in my own brain.

3rd-person: a similar brain process that happens in someone else's brain.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think LW has it. Geoff, you might want to go back to fuzzy terms like mind and qualia. The term subjective just doesn't capture the problem.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I admit it.

OK, let's make the implications of that admission crystal clear, so nobody can misunderstand them any longer.

In order to stop the confusion which has arisen from simply defining minds, including their inherently subjective features, as being physical brain processes I asked you to make a choice. You admitted the existence of things which are inherently subjective in nature. So let's accept your funny definition of mind and just use the word "qualia" since this word was invented for the precisely this purpose. Your "I admit it" was logically equivalent to admitting there is a point in using the word "qualia" to mean "the inherently subjective parts of mind". You have already admitted they exist, and, by definition, they are not physical processes. And you CANNOT challenge the definition because then I'm just going to line up yet another word to attach to whatever the "inherently subjective" entities are and we will end up right back here again.

What proof?

The one you are about to demonstrate.

Yes, I'm proposing that the physical events are the inner experiences that we call consciousness.

You have just contradicted yourself. You are now proposing that the qualia, which you have already accepted are inherently subjective (i.e. NOT BRAIN PROCESSES) "are" physical events/processes.

It's either a reductio ad absurdum or a proof by contradiction. If you deny the existence of subjective things, it's a reductio. If you admit their existence then you end up contradicting your own definitions. Not proof by armwaving, proof by assertion, proof by "it must be true". Reductio's and contradictions are actual proofs, and that is what this is.

Do you understand the proof?

....saying some crud about zero and nothingness isn't an explanation, either.

That defence doesn't work, especially since you weren't able to understand my explanation. This is an invalid response on two counts. First, whether or not my system works makes no difference as to whether or not the proof against physicalism works. Second, the fact that nobody understood my system isn't evidence that it is illogical. It's not my fault you couldn't understand it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

1st-person: a brain process that happens in my own brain.

3rd-person: a similar brain process that happens in someone else's brain.

Nice try, but it's no better than the others. Both of the things you've described are 3rd-person descriptions. You can have a 3rd-person experience of your own brain - all you have to do is cut a hole in your head and sit in front of a mirror. You then end up with two things refered to as "brain process in my own brain", one of them is 3rd-person and one of them is 1st-person. Guess which one I'm interested in?

 

[69dodge]

It is obvious that consciousness isn't maths. Mathematical entities are in no way subjective. That's why I need to redefine Zero as something else.

I don't really understand what else you define it as, except that you call it "neutral". Whatever "neutral" means, I guess it doesn't mean mental, because then you'd be proposing idealism, which you claim you aren't doing. So you still have the problem of explaining mental stuff in terms of nonmental stuff. Why is this easier just because the nonmental stuff is called "neutral" instead of "material"?

Anyway, do you believe that you actually have an explanation in terms of your neutral stuff, or do you just think that such an explanation is possible but you don't yet know the details? I still can't imagine what such an explanation would look like, if you don't accept as an explanation simply a description of which brain processes correspond to which mental experiences, but rather you want a "real" explanation. If you insist that the mental, by definition, can't be explained in terms of anything else, then you're kind of stuck if you nevertheless want an explanation of the mental in terms of something else.

 

[LW]

Nice try, but it's no better than the others. Both of the things you've described are 3rd-person descriptions. You can have a 3rd-person experience of your own brain - all you have to do is cut a hole in your head and sit in front of a mirror. You then end up with two things refered to as "brain process in my own brain", one of them is 3rd-person and one of them is 1st-person. Guess which one I'm interested in?

Only one of those viewpoints is the actual physical process of neurons firing inside my brain.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't really understand what else you define it as, except that you call it "neutral". Whatever "neutral" means, I guess it doesn't mean mental, because then you'd be proposing idealism, which you claim you aren't doing.

The system I proposed can be tweaked very easily to turn it into either materialism or idealism. So it is quite close to idealism, without being idealism. It is also, in its own way, quite close to materialism - because it can be naturalised.

So you still have the problem of explaining mental stuff in terms of nonmental stuff.

There's no "mental stuff" in my system.

Why is this easier just because the nonmental stuff is called "neutral" instead of "material"?

Because it allows a symmetrical reduction instead of a lop-sided one.

Anyway, do you believe that you actually have an explanation in terms of your neutral stuff, or do you just think that such an explanation is possible but you don't yet know the details?

I think I have an explanation. Not that it's really mine. I offered it so people might better understand why I wasn't defending certain other positions, but it created more confusion rather than less.

I still can't imagine what such an explanation would look like, if you don't accept as an explanation simply a description of which brain processes correspond to which mental experiences, but rather you want a "real" explanation. If you insist that the mental, by definition, can't be explained in terms of anything else, then you're kind of stuck if you nevertheless want an explanation of the mental in terms of something else.

Are you familiar with Bohm's concept of the implicate order and the explicate order? Have you heard of the analogy of the ink drop in glycerine?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Only one of those viewpoints is the actual physical process of neurons firing inside my brain.

Yep, it's the one where "brain" and "neuron" makes sense as meaningfull descriptions - the 3rd-person one.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In order to stop the confusion which has arisen from simply defining minds, including their inherently subjective features, as being physical brain processes I asked you to make a choice.

I have been making no such definition. I have been asking you to show the proof that they are not.

You admitted the existence of things which are inherently subjective in nature. So let's accept your funny definition of mind and just use the word "qualia" since this word was invented for the precisely this purpose.

I'm becoming suspicious that we will have different definitions for subjective.

Your "I admit it" was logically equivalent to admitting there is a point in using the word "qualia" to mean "the inherently subjective parts of mind".

I would be willing to define qualia to mean that, sure.

You have already admitted they exist, and, by definition, they are not physical processes.

I didn't realize I had done this question begging, so I'd better retract whatever it was that I admitted.

And you CANNOT challenge the definition because then I'm just going to line up yet another word to attach to whatever the "inherently subjective" entities are and we will end up right back here again.

In other words, you are going to beg the question forever.

You have just contradicted yourself. You are now proposing that the qualia, which you have already accepted are inherently subjective (i.e. NOT BRAIN PROCESSES) "are" physical events/processes.

Since when does "inherently subjective" imply "not brain processes"? Please remove your foot from my mouth.

It's either a reductio ad absurdum or a proof by contradiction. If you deny the existence of subjective things, it's a reductio. If you admit their existence then you end up contradicting your own definitions. Not proof by armwaving, proof by assertion, proof by "it must be true". Reductio's and contradictions are actual proofs, and that is what this is.

Do you understand the proof?

Nope.

That defence doesn't work, especially since you weren't able to understand my explanation.

That wasn't a defense. I was just pointing out that the Zemperor has no clothes.

~~ Paul