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

David Mo said:
Beautiful sentence but not too clear.

In reality this is a statement of intentions. Many problems are solved by science that aroused new problems. Science is a way to solve old problems by means of new unsolved problems about the same things that we thought solved. Nobody knows if this chain will never end. I am not so optimistic as Dennet is because nobody knows if this chain has some unknowable links. The origin of Universe seems to be one of them. Maybe human consciousness is another unsolvable problem. Some of these problems are metaphysics. Analysis can discard them. Other are unavoidable and we have to look for extra-scientific provisional solutions.
Click to expand...

What sort of “extra-scientific provisional solutions” do you have in mind? Is there any reason to assume there will be some unknowable links in the scientific chain of discovery? Surely this is getting perilously close to the theist “we don’t know, therefore God” solution to scientific problems otherwise known as 'god-of-the-gaps'.

However, speculations about the future are not scientific in themselves. What a rational sceptic has to do is to manage himself with the current state of positive knowledge. And current science is not able to explain every feature of what we call mind. We ought to cope with limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour and use mental concepts when we have not other choice.
Click to expand...

Scientific “speculations” are usually referred to as hypotheses and are an important part of the scientific method. You're assuming, without good reason given the history of scientific advancement, that limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour will be permanently insoluble.
 
Ian, you complicate things unnecessarily and it blurs the point.

You seem to agree with me that if (a really, really big IF, I know) you were a brain in a vat, you could not know for sure that you were one, since your experiences would be identical to what you would have experienced as a brain in a scull in a body in the real world.

Just answer yes or no for me, please. :)

I promise you, it relates directly to the solipsist and the reason David Mo said that all your arguments against it made no sense. Just bear with me, it will make sense.
 
Cheetah said:
Steve said:
I understand that you have provided an example that, by your own words, does not illustrate what you want it to. You could try again to provide an example that does.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha...no.

I said the argument does not necessitate an external reality although the example (brain in a vat) does contain one. It is trivial to think up another example to illustrate the same point, but without an external reality.

Clearer?
Click to expand...


If you have another example (instead of the failed brain-in-a-vat example), then what is your other example?

What other example do you produce to show how a disembodied mind can exist without a brain (or any other physically existing cause?).
 
I'm coming to that, it's the dreaded...

SOLIPSIST


...or how I understand it anyway.

Was just waiting for your "yes".
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
*You actually can comprehend it, it's not that difficult, you just have to want to. I can help.
**The reason this argument is (actually has to be), accepted is because it does not make any assumptions and relies on impeccable logic. This is the basis of philosophy, and fun. Any argument you can construct, using no assumptions and impeccable logic, has to be accepted no matter how improbable or ridiculous it seems. No one might believe it actually to be true, but you cannot deny it is at least possible.
Click to expand...


Re. the first highlight - what is this claimed "impeccable" "argument" for which you chose the complete failure of a "brain-in-a-vat"?

Re. the second highlight - you mean to say that we "cannot deny it is at least possible" for a disembodied mind to exist as a "brain in a vat"? Well that is a claim that you make, it is you who is claiming it is possible ... so it's you who has to show that your claim of a disembodied mind is possible ...

... it is not the job of anyone else to agree or disagree with you when you say we have to admit that it's possible ... we most definitely do not have to admit any such thing ... I don't know whether it could be possible or not, but that claim is YOUR's, so it's YOU who must provide an actual proof for what you just claimed as a certainty when you said "you cannot deny it is at least possible" ...

... so go on, prove that it's possible for a disembodied mind to exist without any external reality.
 
You are such a rude person, I wonder why I bother?

Its FUN!
:D


You still have not answered.


"Yes", please.
 
Last edited:
Tassman said:
What sort of “extra-scientific provisional solutions” do you have in mind? Is there any reason to assume there will be some unknowable links in the scientific chain of discovery? Surely this is getting perilously close to the theist “we don’t know, therefore God” solution to scientific problems otherwise known as 'god-of-the-gaps'.



Scientific “speculations” are usually referred to as hypotheses and are an important part of the scientific method. You're assuming, without good reason given the history of scientific advancement, that limitations of the scientific knowledge of brain and behaviour will be permanently insoluble.
Click to expand...
I am sorry. I haven't been precise enough.
God has nothing to do with science, facts and cosmology. It is a superfluous hypothesis, if not contradictory.
I was trying to compare psychology with the natural sciences. I said "extra-scientific" because in psychology it is inevitable to resort to concepts and theories that do not have the level of nature sciences in terms of operative definitions, mathematics, control of variables and predictive power. This is why it is necessary to resort to concepts such as conscious, intentional, emotion, shame, subjective states, etc. and methods such as tests, questionnaires and introspection that are mediated by verbal responses and subjective assessments.
This is the current situation and there is no foresight that it will change in the short or medium term.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts.

Forecasting scientific development is certainly not a scientific discipline, in the sense that the methods of nature sciences are applied. It's history of science. I predict nothing about the limits of science. I say it's unpredictable.
 
Cheetah said:
I'm saying that the "imagined premises" of the thought experiment are "undeniably true", not only in the context of the thought experiment, but also in the "real world" that we live in.
Click to expand...

"Imagined premises" are not "undeniably true", they are assumptions. They may be true but there is no way to actually show they are true.
 
Last edited:
Science cannot explain consciousness in the same way that a loving father cannot e get to the end of his young child's endless why's.

But the child grows up, and sees how the world is, and answers their own why's.

When will these amateur philosophers grow up, and learn science?
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
I am sorry. I haven't been precise enough.
God has nothing to do with science, facts and cosmology. It is a superfluous hypothesis, if not contradictory.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. I was confused by your reference to the need for “extra-scientific provisional solutions”.

I was trying to compare psychology with the natural sciences. I said "extra-scientific" because in psychology it is inevitable to resort to concepts and theories that do not have the level of nature sciences in terms of operative definitions, mathematics, control of variables and predictive power. This is why it is necessary to resort to concepts such as conscious, intentional, emotion, shame, subjective states, etc. and methods such as tests, questionnaires and introspection that are mediated by verbal responses and subjective assessments.
This is the current situation and there is no foresight that it will change in the short or medium term.
Click to expand...

I disagree that natural science is not able to examine the origin and nature of consciousness. All indications are that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system. 'Consciousness' is at bottom a mechanical biological system and therefore accessible to examination by the physical sciences.

As you can see, this has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts.
Click to expand...

Nor with science, it seems.

Forecasting scientific development is certainly not a scientific discipline, in the sense that the methods of nature sciences are applied. It's history of science. I predict nothing about the limits of science. I say it's unpredictable.
Click to expand...

“Forecasting scientific developments”, may not be a scientific discipline but developing and testing scientific hypotheses is fundamental to science and this is what I’m talking about.
 
Tassman said:
As I understand it, a valid argument is concerned with the logical form of the argument, not necessarily the truth of the argument...although the truth value of the argument is implied. OTOH an argument is 'sound' only if it is both valid, and all of its premises can be shown to be actually true.
Click to expand...
I think that makes sense, thanks.



David Mo said:
Conclusion: the mere existence of impressions doesn't justify the belief that the external world exists.
Click to expand...
Good thing that science isn't satisfied with just accepting "the mere existence of impressions" and probes further.


The solipsist gives a further step: How do you know that you have a brain? By means of impressions. Draw your own conclusion, please.
Click to expand...
How about you providing an answer? You've stated many times you don't believe in the solipsist position, so instead of you and Cheetah trying to play the Socratic method, please provide one yourself.


Cheetah said:
I promise you, it relates directly to the solipsist and the reason David Mo said that all your arguments against it made no sense. Just bear with me, it will make sense.
Click to expand...
Again, please just state your point instead of trying to elicit a specific answer.



Cheetah said:
You are such a rude person, I wonder why I bother?
Click to expand...
I hope you are teasing here.
 
Can brains in a vat talk about actual things, such as a tree? No, they can't, they've no experience of any such thing as an actual tree. Perhaps they have an experience of a vat "tree"... but a vat "tree" is not an actual tree.

Likewise, a brain in a vat can not talk of an actual brain in a vat.... perhaps, they can speak of a vat "brain in a vat", but that is totally different than an actual brain in a vat.

We are not brains in a vat, at least not me :D
 
The Norseman said:
Again, please just state your point instead of trying to elicit a specific answer.
Click to expand...

This is basic logic the arguments and points are all true or false.

During this discussion, when I try to make a point and state that A=B, therefore C, D, therefore E,F ( and I also explain why), IansS replies with a very long post that I have real difficulty in following. There seems to be some agreement, but also obviously not. I cannot quite understand where the problem lies.
I'm trying to just start with A=B and get IansS to say "yes, I agree A is equal to B", before I can move on with my argument.
There seems no point in moving on to C,D,E and F if we cannot agree that A=B.

How do you suggest I go about it? I'm open to anything.
 
Last edited:
Tassman said:
I disagree that natural science is not able to examine the origin and nature of consciousness. All indications are that the mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system. 'Consciousness' is at bottom a mechanical biological system and therefore accessible to examination by the physical sciences.
Click to expand...
I am afraid that you confuse two things: having indications that one thing causes the other —in a broad sense— and to be able to translate a proposition from one language into another —establishing an identity between the two.
You cannot produce science on the basis of a mere indication. This is why the problem mind-brain includes some philosophical aspects that are unavoidable. Of course, many scientific data are relevant in this issue, but they are not sufficient to develop a language capable to describe, explain and predict every psychological proposition in terms of neurological responses.

I have read some psychological articles and books lately and I don't know any of them that says other thing. Perhaps you can give here an alternative reference.

Tassman said:
“Forecasting scientific developments”, may not be a scientific discipline but developing and testing scientific hypotheses is fundamental to science and this is what I’m talking about.
Click to expand...
You could say, given the current situation in the research on the brain, that a complete translation of psychological problems into neurology is predictable. I am afraid that this prediction —right or wrong— is not scientific. Evolution of science is a complicated issue where many determinant circumstances —both socials and internal— are almost impossible to control. However, it would be interesting to see how you can give here an example of that kind of scientific prediction.
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
Good thing that science isn't satisfied with just accepting "the mere existence of impressions" and probes further.
Click to expand...
Good thing, truly. But science plays in other field and with other rules that the solipsist. Science starts with the assumption that in some precise circumstances some impressions correspond to reality. Science never questions this starting point. The solipsist does. This is why the solipsist problem is not scientific, but a philosophical one.
The Norseman said:
How about you providing an answer? You've stated many times you don't believe in the solipsist position, so instead of you and Cheetah trying to play the Socratic method, please provide one yourself.
Click to expand...
See my comment #1194 posted in page 30, 7th February 2018, 08:53 AM, please.
 
I think I should paint the bigger picture, it might clarify things.

Sometimes it seems that most people commenting here are of the opinion that the subject under discussion involves opinions. This could not be further from the truth.
The very foundation of this subject is deductive reasoning.
It starts with the classic premise:"I think therefore I am" which is taken as undeniably true.
From there it uses logical deduction to construct different "thought experiments" such as the solipsist and the "brain in a vat".
All these "thought experiments" have to be logically consistent, not only concerning the "thought experiment itself", but in absolute terms, it is a requirement.

The solipsist has been specifically constructed, using deductive reasoning to "fall short" of making any claims about reality at all, it makes none. It uses no false premises at all and the argument is therefore undeniably both valid and true.
It cannot be "useful" in any real sense, apart form being an exercise in logic and deduction, since it makes no claims about reality.
And since it makes no claims about reality it cannot be proven "wrong" using a materialist based argument, such as IansS has been attempting. It is logically impossible, trying it really makes no sense. There is no opinion about this, it is a fact.

This is of course also the foundation of science.
Solipsism, "brain in a vat" and materialism are all equally valid and true up to here, if you want to move further you have to start making assumptions.
Solipsism assumes the "solipsist universe", brain in the vat assumes the brain and the vat and the computer simulating reality and materialism assumes the real world.
It really does not matter that the solipsist universe might appear extremely implausible and the real universe overwhelmingly so. Just as long as it is not logically inconsistent.
Science accepts the world is real and takes that exact same logic further, and that is what science is built on.

IanS seems to insist he can address a solipsist with a materialist argument. I'm busy trying to explain to him why he cannot. I am struggling.

Does that make sense The Norseman, Tassman?

I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
I think I should paint the bigger picture, it might clarify things.

Sometimes it seems that most people commenting here are of the opinion that the subject under discussion involves opinions. This could not be further from the truth.
The very foundation of this subject is deductive reasoning.
It starts with the classic premise:"I think therefore I am" which is taken as undeniably true.
...snip....
Click to expand...

1) that is circular reasoning

2) And since that can't be shown to be true the entire argument from it cannot be said to be "true"
 
David Mo said:
I am afraid that you confuse two things: having indications that one thing causes the other —in a broad sense— and to be able to translate a proposition from one language into another —establishing an identity between the two.
You cannot produce science on the basis of a mere indication. This is why the problem mind-brain includes some philosophical aspects that are unavoidable. Of course, many scientific data are relevant in this issue, but they are not sufficient to develop a language capable to describe, explain and predict every psychological proposition in terms of neurological responses.
Click to expand...

Natural science is the branch of science that deals with the material world, e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology. Given this, there is no reason to assume, as you appear to be, that ‘consciousness’ cannot be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system. Or that ‘consciousness' is anything more than a biological system accessible to examination by the physical sciences.

I have read some psychological articles and books lately and I don't know any of them that says other thing. Perhaps you can give here an alternative reference.
Click to expand...

You are straying into the social sciences by introducing psychology. Even so, Daniel Dennett, whom you previously resisted, is well equipped to deal with these questions. He is, after all, a philosopher, writer, and cognitive scientist whose research centres on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and philosophy of biology. It is he who says: “I suspect that dualism would never be seriously considered if there weren't such a strong undercurrent of desire to protect the mind from science, by supposing it composed of a stuff that is in principle uninvestigatable by the methods of the physical sciences”. With all due respect, I think this applies to you.

You could say, given the current situation in the research on the brain, that a complete translation of psychological problems into neurology is predictable. I am afraid that this prediction —right or wrong— is not scientific. Evolution of science is a complicated issue where many determinant circumstances —both socials and internal— are almost impossible to control. However, it would be interesting to see how you can give here an example of that kind of scientific prediction.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing ‘psychology’ with ‘consciousness’; the former is the province of the social sciences, i.e. the study of people and societies, whereas the latter belongs to the physical sciences, which deal with the material world including biology...see above. It is the latter that concerns us here.
 
Cheetah said:
Here is my reference:

Cogito ergo sum

Would you please cite yours?
Click to expand...

Why do you need a cite and why do I need one?

As to it being circular reasoning that is because it presumes the existence of "I" to then deduct that "I" exists. Or another way to say it - the first "I" already includes the concept of itself/self/I.
 
Because if you cannot cite it, it's just your opinion and I cannot argue against opinions, it is by definition futile.
This seems utterly logical to me.
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
Because if you cannot cite it, it's just your opinion and I cannot argue against opinions.
Click to expand...

Eh? That's the weirdest thing I've heard for a long time. A cite doesn't make something not your opinion, at the most it would show that other people share your opinion.

According to your "criteria" I can simply say "I think therefore I am is Descartes and your opinion and I cannot argue against opinion".
 
Cheetah said:
Ian, you complicate things unnecessarily and it blurs the point.

1. You seem to agree with me that if (a really, really big IF, I know) you were a brain in a vat, you could not know for sure that you were one, ...
2. … since your experiences would be identical to what you would have experienced as a brain in a scull in a body in the real world.
Just answer yes or no for me, please. :)

I promise you, it relates directly to the solipsist and the reason David Mo said that all your arguments against it made no sense. Just bear with me, it will make sense.
Click to expand...


OK, if we are going to be entirely reasonable and constructive about this – I will try to give you an honest answer, and as far as possible without undue or biased influence from what has be said here before -

1. Re. The first highlight – I agree that if it was possible to put a disembodied but still living human brain in something called a “vat”, and possible to stimulate it with electrical or other signals which some other unknown intelligent being had created as a perfect way of causing that brain to have thoughts identical to what we experience as everything ever known in what we think of as the universe around us (that's a vastly detailed set of thoughts and thinking responses, that would fill billions upon trillions of A4 pages of description), then it is at least possible for us as not-brains-in-vats to make an un-evidenced unexplained proposal like that … though anyone could make countless such proposals about anything at all when they do not have to show any evidence or any credible explanation for what they are proposing.

IOW – the proposal seems to be this – if it were possible to produce a situation where you could not trust anything at all from any of your thoughts, then you could not trust anything at all from any of your thoughts. That's what the example of a BiV seems to boil down to. But that of course is a worthless statement of the sort that anyone could make about absolutely anything, unless of course they can show good evidence of how that could actually happen …

… but it's no use at all just saying “we cannot rule it out, because it MIGHT be possible” … anything might be possible … that's a worthless statement unless you can show genuine evidence for how it "might" be possible.

Here's a thought for you, which seems identical & equivalent to the BiV claim, only it's precisely the opposite way around -

- suppose the alien is completely wrong to believe that it has put a human brain in a vat, suppose instead that it is the advanced aliens brain which is actually the one in the vat! The alien brain has entirely false thoughts about what it imagines as a reality of putting a human brain in vat, and instead the actual reality is that real humans with a true reality are the ones who have put the alien brain into a vat of false unreal thoughts.

IOW – if you can request that we first assume that an alien intelligence could put a disembodied human brain in a vat, then we can equally request that you first assume that it was actually humans who had put the alien brain in a vat. So that its only the alien brain that has a false view of reality.

If you want me to show how it could be possible for humans to put an alien brain in a vat, then I want you to show first how it could be possible for a supposed alien to put a human brain in a vat. You need to show that first, because it was entirely your claim in the first place!


2. Re. the second highlight – you are making an assumption that “your experiences would be identical “ to what you would have experienced as a brain in a real human body … but that's an unwarranted assumption and it's inadmissible until you can show how that could actually be the case. IOW if you build an argument based on any assumption like that, then you have to show that it would indeed be possible to produce literally “identical” thoughts to those which would occur if/when the same brain was functioning normally in a real human body in a real world of real events and real objects …

… IOW, you have to ask “is it actually a reasonable assumption to say that all thoughts would be identical?” … and the answer is that you have no idea lol! … at least you have no idea unless and until you can show good evidence for how that could be possible.


But to make a much more general observation – what I think is happening with all philosophical arguments like these (solipsism or Brain in Vat etc.), is that philosophers have merely created word-arguments that contain within their use of words & their phrasing, all sorts of hidden assumptions and semantic deceptions … so that at first sight the philosophical argument looks good … but it only looks good providing you accept all of the unspoken assumptions and premisses that are required to make that argument seem reasonable at all. But there is never any justification or actual evidence, or even a credible explanation offered to show why any of those unstated assumptions and unstated premisses are reasonable or likely to be true at all ….

… IOW what I suspect is happening in most philosophical arguments like this, is that the so-called “argument” really just reduces to a procedure of first getting everyone to accept a whole mass of unstated and unwarranted assumptions, and then claiming itself to be unassailable because you have already agreed to all it's unwarranted assumptions.
 
And lets not forget "'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist' " is all part of Descartes "proof" that God exists, it does not stand alone and outside Descartes' meditations on the existence of god.
 
Cheetah said:
Darat, it is the basis of western philosophy.

Which philosophy would you rather discuss?
Click to expand...

:confused:

I thought we were in this thread discussing "Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore.......", and people have been bringing up strands of philosophy to address the "therefore" . I did not know we were meant to be critiquing over two thousand years of people chewing the fat!

(Never mind the aside that I don't recognise that Descartes "'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist" is the basis of "western" philosophy.)
 
Darat said:
:confused:

I thought we were in this thread discussing "Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore......."
Click to expand...

The thread has seriously drifted, there has not been a post about 'science and consciousness' in this thread since way before I joined in. I dunno what gave you that idea.
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
The thread has seriously drifted, there has not been a post about 'science and consciousness' in this thread since way before I joined in. I dunno what gave you that idea.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean we are meant to be discussing the entire basis of "western" philosophy....

(Plus of course there have been such posts.)

ETA: And of course what we haven't had is that "therefore...." being answered by anyone posting about philosophy. You'd almost think ;) that philosophy has no answer to provide about understanding consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Ok, philosophy.

Darat ignore the words "I think, therefore I am" for a while and lets focus on the concept.

When I make the statement "Darat thinks" would you agree with me?
I believe it to be 100% true. Even though I have never met you and I might have been fooled in some clever way, I'd bet my life on it that you think, literally.
Do you agree with me?
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
Ok, philosophy.

Darat ignore the words "I think, therefore I am" for a while and lets focus on the concept.

When I make the statement "Darat thinks" would you agree with me?
I believe it to be 100% true, even though I have never met you and I might have been fooled in some clever way. I'd bet my life on it that you think.
Do you agree with me?
Click to expand...
I believe I have the same behaviours that other people also label "think". Would I bet my life on that being 100% correct? If I did bet the answer would be no.
 
Cheetah said:
Yes, but not logical..... in my opinion.

:D
Click to expand...

Sure it is... X has property Y, so, we can conclude X exists.
You already need to invoke the existence of X to claim that it has property Y, so you're just going round in circles. Your entire proof that X exists rests on your assumption that it does.

I'm probably not making myself very clear 😁
 
Darat, then I don't understand your definition of "think", could you elaborate?

What if we change it to "experience"?

Darat Experiences!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom