IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , consciousness

Reply
Old 5th January 2018, 10:02 AM   #441
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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/sci...sychology.html).

Last edited by David Mo; 5th January 2018 at 10:55 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 10:04 AM   #442
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by baron View Post
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.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 10:13 AM   #443
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
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
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 10:14 AM   #444
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
But neither of them is more or less real than the other.
Exactly right.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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).

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.

Last edited by baron; 5th January 2018 at 10:19 AM. Reason: repetition
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 11:01 AM   #445
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
Originally Posted by baron View Post


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.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 11:04 AM   #446
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 11:12 AM   #447
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 11:14 AM   #448
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 01:11 PM   #449
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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/sci...sychology.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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 01:14 PM   #450
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by baron View Post
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?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 01:24 PM   #451
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
"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.

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Do you think you could give a comprehensive answer when asked to explain the theory of god?
Try it.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 02:01 PM   #452
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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.

Last edited by David Mo; 5th January 2018 at 02:02 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 03:28 PM   #453
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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/sci...sychology.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.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 03:32 PM   #454
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 06:34 PM   #455
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Or, to those with a whit of knowledge
It's useless trying to interact with you with your casual insults. Bye.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 06:37 PM   #456
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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).
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2018, 11:52 PM   #457
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
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.
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 03:32 AM   #458
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 03:48 AM   #459
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by baron View Post
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.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 04:00 AM   #460
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 12:16 PM   #461
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Alright. You have my apologies and thank you for the link.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 12:38 PM   #462
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Alright. You have my apologies and thank you for the link.
I apologise for suggesting, without evidence, that you had no knowledge.

And that's the way it's done.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 01:58 PM   #463
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Deleted because too much time has passed since the post to which I replied
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 6th January 2018 at 02:02 PM.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 02:08 PM   #464
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Deleted because too much time has passed since the post to which I replied
Do you think deleting a post removes it from the eternally conscious Akashic field? Pigeons indeed.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 02:10 PM   #465
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Do you think deleting a post removes it from the eternally conscious Akashic field? Pigeons indeed.
LOL!

I stand by it, but felt it was no longer relevant. Should have checked the page count before posting!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2018, 04:34 PM   #466
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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.
I wasn't actually thinking about psychology when I made my statement about predicting human behaviour. I do agree that it is still a branch of science that has a long way to go (needs to incorporate more physics and chemistry for a start) but don't forget the same can be said for other branches of science.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2018, 01:23 AM   #467
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I wasn't actually thinking about psychology when I made my statement about predicting human behaviour. I do agree that it is still a branch of science that has a long way to go (needs to incorporate more physics and chemistry for a start) but don't forget the same can be said for other branches of science.
I agree with you on that. Advances on understanding human behaviour in the last decades had been produced by chemical and physical studies of brain. Some progress has been also made with techniques of behavioural modification. But other dualist psychologies are stagnant. Psychoanalysis mainly. This suggest that materialism is the only explanation of mind.

Dualists tend to argue that these advances are only about symptoms, not underlying causes, but this seems begging the question. The outcomes are too incomplete; this is true. But this doesn't justify to speak of a hidden entity behind the brain. This only points to the inherent complexity of the material bases of our behaviour.

Psychoanalysts forget that Freud predicted that his theory would be supported by brain studies in the future. This has not exactly happen, but Freud's confidence in the material foundations of brain remains. Freud thought that dualist language was only needed by the limitations of our knowledge. I agree and I think this is still the case. We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 10:22 AM   #468
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
That's a really interesting and observant point. It's almost a perfect study of why threads here always go down the same road.

We are, on the whole, simply not ready with Theory, and, perforce, must play this dualist game of matter/no matter.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2018, 01:49 PM   #469
MuDPhuD
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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.
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I agree with you on that. Advances on understanding human behaviour in the last decades had been produced by chemical and physical studies of brain. Some progress has been also made with techniques of behavioural modification. But other dualist psychologies are stagnant. Psychoanalysis mainly. This suggest that materialism is the only explanation of mind.

Dualists tend to argue that these advances are only about symptoms, not underlying causes, but this seems begging the question. The outcomes are too incomplete; this is true. But this doesn't justify to speak of a hidden entity behind the brain. This only points to the inherent complexity of the material bases of our behaviour.

Psychoanalysts forget that Freud predicted that his theory would be supported by brain studies in the future. This has not exactly happen, but Freud's confidence in the material foundations of brain remains. Freud thought that dualist language was only needed by the limitations of our knowledge. I agree and I think this is still the case. We need to speak of consciousness or freedom because we have not other way to describe some behaviours. Whether a materialist explanation of mind would be produced in the future or not, only the future can tell it. For the moment, psychologists need to be materialist in their methods and dualist by necessity.
If your argument is meant to apply to psychology alone, OK, I suppose, but neuroscience has produced a mountain of evidence regarding the origin the mind from the activity of the brain which cannot be ignored.
I can't let this statement:
"Dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim",
pass without comment.

Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain. Interfere with the chemistry of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind; interfere with the structure of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind, electrically stimulate the brain, and you generate conscious content within the mind. This is an iron clad case, backed up by thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed research articles. The fact that psychology as a science remains flawed does not erase this foundation in neuroscience, it simply means there is much more work to be done in the field.

The only argument dualists may wish to make (and frequently do in these very pages), is that no one can say HOW the brain produces the mind. I am happy to concede this point, but the fact that the brain DOES INDEED generate the mind by "some mechanism" is without doubt. I would suggest that more progress would be made in less time by psychology, as a field, by presupposing the obvious (mind is brain), than by continuing to work in a failed paradigm (mind is its own entity), as you suggest.
MuDPhuD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 02:34 PM   #470
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by MuDPhuD View Post
Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain. Interfere with the chemistry of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind; interfere with the structure of the brain, and you interfere with the working of the mind, electrically stimulate the brain, and you generate conscious content within the mind. This is an iron clad case, backed up by thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed research articles. The fact that psychology as a science remains flawed does not erase this foundation in neuroscience, it simply means there is much more work to be done in the field.
That doesn't tell the full story. A gravitational field exists independently of mass, but as soon as you remove the mass the field vanishes too (and indeed there will always be a slight delay so that the gravitational field will always exist after the mass has vanished). I'm not claiming the mind is generated by the brain in the same way as gravity is generated by mass, but the latter does show that correlation of mind and brain alone does not disprove the fundamental tenet of dualism (although it tends to refuse most others).
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 11:37 PM   #471
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That doesn't tell the full story. A gravitational field exists independently of mass, but as soon as you remove the mass the field vanishes too (and indeed there will always be a slight delay so that the gravitational field will always exist after the mass has vanished). I'm not claiming the mind is generated by the brain in the same way as gravity is generated by mass, but the latter does show that correlation of mind and brain alone does not disprove the fundamental tenet of dualism (although it tends to refuse most others).
Really? When exactly and using what method did you measure the speed of gravity? Where is your Nobel prize?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 12:08 AM   #472
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Really? When exactly and using what method did you measure the speed of gravity? Where is your Nobel prize?
Where did he say he measured it? BTW the scientist that did measure it doesn't have a Nobel either, at least not yet.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 03:38 AM   #473
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by MuDPhuD View Post
If your argument is meant to apply to psychology alone, OK, I suppose, but neuroscience has produced a mountain of evidence regarding the origin the mind from the activity of the brain which cannot be ignored.
I can't let this statement:
"Dualists can emphasize the flaws of psychology to assert the independence of mind, spirit or soul and science cannot argue against this claim",
pass without comment.

Science most certainly can, and does argue, quite successfully against the claim that the mind exists independent of the brain.

Since science -neuroscience if you want- cannot provide a whole explanation of many particular behaviours, it cannot answer the philosophical assumption of dualism. Science only can affirm what it can empirically be demostrated and neuroscience is not able to provide us with a whole explanation of human behaviour. Only a materialist interpretation of science can -I think that with a clear advantage over dualism. But materialism is philosophy, not science.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 04:07 AM   #474
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Really? When exactly and using what method did you measure the speed of gravity? Where is your Nobel prize?
What? Are you serious? LOL!
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:13 AM   #475
MuDPhuD
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Since science -neuroscience if you want- cannot provide a whole explanation of many particular behaviours, it cannot answer the philosophical assumption of dualism. Science only can affirm what it can empirically be demostrated and neuroscience is not able to provide us with a whole explanation of human behaviour. Only a materialist interpretation of science can -I think that with a clear advantage over dualism. But materialism is philosophy, not science.
Let me paraphrase, and you tell me if I am understanding you:

"Science can't explain all the details, therefore it has nothing to say about the existence of the mind independent of the brain."

Is that what you're saying?
MuDPhuD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 12:57 AM   #476
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by MuDPhuD View Post
Let me paraphrase, and you tell me if I am understanding you:

"Science can't explain all the details, therefore it has nothing to say about the existence of the mind independent of the brain."

Is that what you're saying?
No. I am saying that science cannot solve the debate between dualism and monism. But I am also saying that the debate between dualism and monism cannot be solved without the contributions of science. The advances in neuroscience and behaviour modification are not definitive, but they tip the scales in favor of materialistic monism.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2018, 04:13 PM   #477
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No. I am saying that science cannot solve the debate between dualism and monism. But I am also saying that the debate between dualism and monism cannot be solved without the contributions of science. The advances in neuroscience and behaviour modification are not definitive, but they tip the scales in favor of materialistic monism.
I think there is a basic flaw in the argumentation in the OP: The existence of something has nothing what so ever to do with what science can (currently) explain. Radio waves, electricity, etc. existed also before science had even an inkling of explanation for them.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 01:54 PM   #478
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think there is a basic flaw in the argumentation in the OP: The existence of something has nothing what so ever to do with what science can (currently) explain. Radio waves, electricity, etc. existed also before science had even an inkling of explanation for them.

Hans
Seems some people expect science to perform as if it were an all-knowing god. Only god believers could have such expectations.

If anyone claims there's a better method of finding the truth of reality than science then they should explain . . .

What is that method?
How does that method work?
What are answers provided by that method?

In other words - What explains consciousness better than science and how does it do it (with an example)?

. . . Not holding my breath for any answers . . .
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 14th January 2018 at 01:59 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 02:22 PM   #479
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
Can anyone fault these answers? . . .

Q - What is that method?
A – Paranormal beliefs (usually in a metaphysical cosmic-consciousness/god)

Q - How does that method work?
A – By having belief and faith that it works.

Q - What are answers provided by that method?
A - Any answers you want to believe are provided (Note – If you don’t believe you get the answers you want from your current beliefs you can simply change your beliefs until you do get them).
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 14th January 2018 at 02:56 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 02:25 PM   #480
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 44,024
Science has already begun explaining a lot of traits of consciousness.

That said, on the other hand, it seems that a lot of individual people's consciousnesses cannot explain science.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.