This sums up the magical thinking of reductionism (as a philosophy), where we conveniently forget that those single elementary particles are alraedy interacting with each other. The claim that elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties' is remarkably stupid.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:16 amYou can not refute a term that is used by an observer to classify levels of causality...Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:43 amYes that is the kind of strong emergence (in the philosophical sense) / magical thinking, that I refuted by showing that there are no such fundamental scales to reality. You don't get that big things are the sum of small things. You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense. You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties. You also have no idea what superposition is. What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:14 amSince its your tactic to derail conversations I will try to bring it back on track by pointing out the problem why your reasoning is problematic without taking in to account your sophistries.
Our current scientific paradigm ,a product of ~600 years of continues systematic work and observation, states that high level features (properties) of mater are the product of lower level mechanisms(mechanisms, not single particles).
This is why we no longer assume or search fundamental elements/substances in nature as the source of advanced properties.
We NO longer accept or search for Alkahest,Caloric, Coronium, Elan vital, Elixir of life,Luminiferous Aether, Miasma, Odic force, Panacea, Miasma, Phlogiston, ID, Universal Consciousness etc.
A deeper look in the microscopic scale of QM revealed an uncertainty in our measurements about the states of particles. QM particles can only display kinetic properties(weird but kinetic fueld by forces and their relations). Superposition describes the probable states of particles.i.e. Location,spin. There isn't a "superposition" for the probabilities of toxicity,combustion,liquidity etc of particles.
Your actual statement was :"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-That is a nonsensical and factually useless statement. There are reasons NOT to use or assume superposition, because such properties are not found in particles but only in molecular structures. We don't have a formulation to calculate the superposition of itchiness of a particle lol because itchiness (or digestions or mind or wetness) is not part of the Quantum world.
The more complex they get the more advanced are the emergent properties.
There is also logic and the principle of the Null Hypothesis capable to identify the Default Position (rejection of the connection between A.(i.e. particles and b.(advanced physical properties) UNTIL we are able to falsify our initial rejection through objective empirical evidence
I find it really amazing that individuals in 2021 can even say such scientifically illiterate things...
You cannot refute that low level mechanisms do not display high level features(since it is an objective observation), without offering a verified example where advanced properties are observable as a fundamental property of its parts.
-"You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense."
-Itchiness has a physical underpinning interpreted by your brain as that. That underpinning demands the existence of the molecular structure of your skin.....
-" You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties."
-You don't seem to realize that they only display energetic/kinetic properties. You also need to provide objective evidence for those additional properties you have faith on.
-" You also have no idea what superposition is."
-Well who claimed that ...toxicity, elasticity, hardness, liquidity etc etc.....are superpositions of particles (like location) lol, so you do understand the irony in that statement of yours, right!!!!?
-"What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically."
-Sure, I will accept your self critique....
Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Direct Objective observations and establishing sufficiency and necessity between the relation of parts, mechanisms and expressed properties has nothing to do with Philosophy or reductionism as a doctrine. Its a observations described in detail by science's frameworks and an essential scientific method of investigation.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:22 amThis sums up the magical thinking of reductionism (as a philosophy), where we conveniently forget that those single elementary particles are alraedy interacting with each other. The claim that elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties' is remarkably stupid.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:16 amYou can not refute a term that is used by an observer to classify levels of causality...Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:43 amYes that is the kind of strong emergence (in the philosophical sense) / magical thinking, that I refuted by showing that there are no such fundamental scales to reality. You don't get that big things are the sum of small things. You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense. You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties. You also have no idea what superposition is. What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 6:14 am
Since its your tactic to derail conversations I will try to bring it back on track by pointing out the problem why your reasoning is problematic without taking in to account your sophistries.
Our current scientific paradigm ,a product of ~600 years of continues systematic work and observation, states that high level features (properties) of mater are the product of lower level mechanisms(mechanisms, not single particles).
This is why we no longer assume or search fundamental elements/substances in nature as the source of advanced properties.
We NO longer accept or search for Alkahest,Caloric, Coronium, Elan vital, Elixir of life,Luminiferous Aether, Miasma, Odic force, Panacea, Miasma, Phlogiston, ID, Universal Consciousness etc.
A deeper look in the microscopic scale of QM revealed an uncertainty in our measurements about the states of particles. QM particles can only display kinetic properties(weird but kinetic fueld by forces and their relations). Superposition describes the probable states of particles.i.e. Location,spin. There isn't a "superposition" for the probabilities of toxicity,combustion,liquidity etc of particles.
Your actual statement was :"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-That is a nonsensical and factually useless statement. There are reasons NOT to use or assume superposition, because such properties are not found in particles but only in molecular structures. We don't have a formulation to calculate the superposition of itchiness of a particle lol because itchiness (or digestions or mind or wetness) is not part of the Quantum world.
The more complex they get the more advanced are the emergent properties.
There is also logic and the principle of the Null Hypothesis capable to identify the Default Position (rejection of the connection between A.(i.e. particles and b.(advanced physical properties) UNTIL we are able to falsify our initial rejection through objective empirical evidence
I find it really amazing that individuals in 2021 can even say such scientifically illiterate things...
You cannot refute that low level mechanisms do not display high level features(since it is an objective observation), without offering a verified example where advanced properties are observable as a fundamental property of its parts.
-"You also confuse scientifically measurable properties like spins with subjective properties like itchiness, that's nonsense."
-Itchiness has a physical underpinning interpreted by your brain as that. That underpinning demands the existence of the molecular structure of your skin.....
-" You also don't seem to realize that elementary particles have properties."
-You don't seem to realize that they only display energetic/kinetic properties. You also need to provide objective evidence for those additional properties you have faith on.
-" You also have no idea what superposition is."
-Well who claimed that ...toxicity, elasticity, hardness, liquidity etc etc.....are superpositions of particles (like location) lol, so you do understand the irony in that statement of yours, right!!!!?
-"What a trainwreck both scientifically and philosophically."
-Sure, I will accept your self critique....
If the claim "elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties" is remarkably stupid, then it should be easy for you to falsify it by providing an example that could qualify as an objective fact against our current Scientific paradigm. So again good luck with that...but I don't see any success in that claim. You constantly fail to come up with a single example and your exit card seems to be new age quantum woo!
The fact is that wishful thoughts like mind properties and your consciousness residing in particles, or assuming properties products of invisible fundamental substances is what magical thinking sounds likes.
This is medieval age pseudo philosophy.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Lol dude extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're the one who has to provide examples where science is investigating elementary particles that aren't already interacting with the rest of the universe / aren't part of the universe. Good luck with that.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:40 am Direct Objective observations and establishing sufficiency and necessity between the relation of parts, mechanisms and expressed properties has nothing to do with Philosophy or reductionism as a doctrine. Its a observations described in detail by science's frameworks and an essential scientific method of investigation.
If the claim "elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties" is remarkably stupid, then it should be easy for you to falsify it by providing an example that could qualify as an objective fact against our current Scientific paradigm. So again good luck with that...but I don't see any success in that claim. You constantly fail to come up with a single example and your exit card seems to be new age quantum woo!
The fact is that wishful thoughts like mind properties and your consciousness residing in particles, or assuming properties products of invisible fundamental substances is what magical thinking sounds likes.
This is medieval age pseudo philosophy.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Our current scientific paradigm makes zero extraordinary claims. It's an observable fact that advanced properties can only be verified as high level features in classical systems.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:45 amLol dude extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're the one who has to provide examples where science is investigating elementary particles that aren't already interacting with the rest of the universe / aren't part of the universe. Good luck with that.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:40 am Direct Objective observations and establishing sufficiency and necessity between the relation of parts, mechanisms and expressed properties has nothing to do with Philosophy or reductionism as a doctrine. Its a observations described in detail by science's frameworks and an essential scientific method of investigation.
If the claim "elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties" is remarkably stupid, then it should be easy for you to falsify it by providing an example that could qualify as an objective fact against our current Scientific paradigm. So again good luck with that...but I don't see any success in that claim. You constantly fail to come up with a single example and your exit card seems to be new age quantum woo!
The fact is that wishful thoughts like mind properties and your consciousness residing in particles, or assuming properties products of invisible fundamental substances is what magical thinking sounds likes.
This is medieval age pseudo philosophy.
If you need to believe something different , it's your right, but in order to sell your faith claims to others you will need objective empirical evidence. Since you make it clear that you haven't got any, I guess you done here.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
All empirical evidence shows that big things are the sum of small things and their interactions (with each other and with the rest of the universe). For example that one particular electron in the brain is just as part of human consciousness as the other 10^27+ particles in the brain, all we have to do is zoom in. It's part of that 'property' in an extremely miniscule way. By denying such things and calling it faith, you've given up that little intellectual integrity you still had left.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 9:59 amOur current scientific paradigm makes zero extraordinary claims. It's an observable fact that advanced properties can only be verified as high level features in classical systems.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:45 amLol dude extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're the one who has to provide examples where science is investigating elementary particles that aren't already interacting with the rest of the universe / aren't part of the universe. Good luck with that.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:40 am Direct Objective observations and establishing sufficiency and necessity between the relation of parts, mechanisms and expressed properties has nothing to do with Philosophy or reductionism as a doctrine. Its a observations described in detail by science's frameworks and an essential scientific method of investigation.
If the claim "elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties" is remarkably stupid, then it should be easy for you to falsify it by providing an example that could qualify as an objective fact against our current Scientific paradigm. So again good luck with that...but I don't see any success in that claim. You constantly fail to come up with a single example and your exit card seems to be new age quantum woo!
The fact is that wishful thoughts like mind properties and your consciousness residing in particles, or assuming properties products of invisible fundamental substances is what magical thinking sounds likes.
This is medieval age pseudo philosophy.
If you need to believe something different , it's your right, but in order to sell your faith claims to others you will need objective empirical evidence. Since you make it clear that you haven't got any, I guess you done here.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
People like you always choose your magical beliefs over reality, like the belief in new properties popping out of nothing when we squint the right way, and proceed to call it science. Who knows what you guys are compensating for, but it's a fairly common behaviour.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
thanks for your input.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 11:22 amAll empirical evidence shows that big things are the sum of small things and their interactions (with each other and with the rest of the universe). For example that one particular electron in the brain is just as part of human consciousness as the other 10^27+ particles in the brain, all we have to do is zoom in. It's part of that 'property' in an extremely miniscule way. By denying such things and calling it faith, you've given up that little intellectual integrity you still had left.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 9:59 amOur current scientific paradigm makes zero extraordinary claims. It's an observable fact that advanced properties can only be verified as high level features in classical systems.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:45 amLol dude extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're the one who has to provide examples where science is investigating elementary particles that aren't already interacting with the rest of the universe / aren't part of the universe. Good luck with that.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 7:40 am Direct Objective observations and establishing sufficiency and necessity between the relation of parts, mechanisms and expressed properties has nothing to do with Philosophy or reductionism as a doctrine. Its a observations described in detail by science's frameworks and an essential scientific method of investigation.
If the claim "elementary particles 'only display energetic/kinetic properties" is remarkably stupid, then it should be easy for you to falsify it by providing an example that could qualify as an objective fact against our current Scientific paradigm. So again good luck with that...but I don't see any success in that claim. You constantly fail to come up with a single example and your exit card seems to be new age quantum woo!
The fact is that wishful thoughts like mind properties and your consciousness residing in particles, or assuming properties products of invisible fundamental substances is what magical thinking sounds likes.
This is medieval age pseudo philosophy.
If you need to believe something different , it's your right, but in order to sell your faith claims to others you will need objective empirical evidence. Since you make it clear that you haven't got any, I guess you done here.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
So you assume chemical, biological and mental properties are "superpositions" of quantum particles like location, spin etc...and I am the magical thinker here!.....okAtla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 11:41 amPeople like you always choose your magical beliefs over reality, like the belief in new properties popping out of nothing when we squint the right way, and proceed to call it science. Who knows what you guys are compensating for, but it's a fairly common behaviour.
IF straw-manning others is part of how you comfort your existential and epistemic anxiety, by all means, I am glad to help sir.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Accusing me of strawmanning would be more effective if your comment wasn't a total strawman heh.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:15 pmSo you assume chemical, biological and mental properties are "superpositions" of quantum particles like location, spin etc...and I am the magical thinker here!.....okAtla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 11:41 amPeople like you always choose your magical beliefs over reality, like the belief in new properties popping out of nothing when we squint the right way, and proceed to call it science. Who knows what you guys are compensating for, but it's a fairly common behaviour.
IF straw-manning others is part of how you comfort your existential and epistemic anxiety, by all means, I am glad to help sir.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Sure..if that was true.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:34 pmAccusing me of strawmanning would be more effective if your comment wasn't a total strawman heh.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:15 pmSo you assume chemical, biological and mental properties are "superpositions" of quantum particles like location, spin etc...and I am the magical thinker here!.....okAtla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 11:41 amPeople like you always choose your magical beliefs over reality, like the belief in new properties popping out of nothing when we squint the right way, and proceed to call it science. Who knows what you guys are compensating for, but it's a fairly common behaviour.
IF straw-manning others is part of how you comfort your existential and epistemic anxiety, by all means, I am glad to help sir.
-"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
You have no idea what superpositions are do youNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:39 pmSure..if that was true.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:34 pmAccusing me of strawmanning would be more effective if your comment wasn't a total strawman heh.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:15 pmSo you assume chemical, biological and mental properties are "superpositions" of quantum particles like location, spin etc...and I am the magical thinker here!.....okAtla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 11:41 am
People like you always choose your magical beliefs over reality, like the belief in new properties popping out of nothing when we squint the right way, and proceed to call it science. Who knows what you guys are compensating for, but it's a fairly common behaviour.
IF straw-manning others is part of how you comfort your existential and epistemic anxiety, by all means, I am glad to help sir.
-"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Pls feel free to explain which mathematical formulations enable the calculation of possible states of complex things....lolAtla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:41 pmYou have no idea what superpositions are do youNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:39 pmSure..if that was true.Atla wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:34 pmAccusing me of strawmanning would be more effective if your comment wasn't a total strawman heh.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 12:15 pm
So you assume chemical, biological and mental properties are "superpositions" of quantum particles like location, spin etc...and I am the magical thinker here!.....ok
IF straw-manning others is part of how you comfort your existential and epistemic anxiety, by all means, I am glad to help sir.
-"There is no known reason why we should think that all those more complex things can't be in superposition."
Also pls point how we can calculate molecular properties...in particles lol.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
If (as it seems reasonable to suppose) our brains are made from elementary particles - the same ones that non-conscious things are made from - then it should in principle be possible to put those elementary particles together to make a conscious brain. Of course, we can do that already. We have sex and then wait nine months. But it should be possible to to it manually, so to speak, too. If that were possible, and if it were successful, and the result was a brain showing all the signs of being conscious, would you regard that as having provided an explanation?
The ability to replicate something isn't the same thing as an explanation, or explanatory theory.
Lets keep it simple, say I wanted to build a table. I could simply copy the structure and materials of an existing table. Or, I could design a different style of table using my scientific knowledge of what the world is made of and how physical forces work.
That explanatory model would tell me the in principle requirements for a table. The necessary and sufficient conditions. I'd need at least 3 legs. The legs should be about the same height because the top would need to be level to stop things sliding off due to gravity. I should use a solid substance not a liquid or gas because those aren't sufficiently molecularly stable. I'd need to consider the size and weight bearing properties I needed and so on. All such considerations would be references to the scientific physicalist model of the world. And the table once built, could be understood in those terms too. Reducible to its physical parts and forces, and predictable that when they're arranged a certain way, I'll get a table.
Science could explain the table in those terms, in principle, even if the detail is unimaginably complex. Right? At a subatomic level it would be explainable in terms of QM, a different model, but still explanatory. Likewise we could in principle build a brain if we had the technology to grow cells in that way. Which we could in principle similarly explain terms of biology and physical processes.
So back to my nice simple table. I can predict, according to physics, that if I have at least 3 legs (the table, not me), and a flat top, my cup won't fall off my table. I will have met the necessary and sufficient conditions for creating a table, and understand why in terms of physics.
But if I build a brain, I'd have no reason to expect conscious experience to turn up, according to the physicalist model of the world - what it's made of and how it works. I wouldn't know the necessary and sufficient conditions for the conscious experience manifesting, except by adding bits or taking them away and seeing what happens. The physicalist model couldn't help me there, because it doesn't talk about conscious experience. So if I wanted to build a conscious thing which doesn't simply copy a brain, I wouldn't know what the necessary and sufficient ingredients are. Because I don't have that type of explanation for conscious experience.
That's the difference I see between simply noting correlations, and having an explanation.
A step further: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the behaviours and interactions of those elementary particles are accurately described by physical laws that can be expressed as mathematical equations.
Then we're pretty much done. If we have a model which which describes the world in terms of what it's made of, and the 'laws' which which describe how that stuff behaves, we can then in principle apply that knowledge to tables and brains, predict what happens, and reduce the emergent properties using that model - because we understand why it works that way. We aren't simply noting this thing happens, we understand why it happens. Why my cup doesn't fall off my table. Yeah?
The problem re the physicalist explanatory model, is that if we put conscious experience into that model, as an emergent property, we don't have a similar reducible backstory for it emerging. A 'bridging' mechanism or law which fits the framework of it being particles behaving in terms of forces. It isn't in principle predictable.
Suppose there was a computer powerful enough to do that for as many elementary particles as there are in our brains. Suppose we did that and the result was a simulated brain showing all the signs of being conscious. (A lot of "supposes"!) Would you regard that as having provided an explanation?
No I wouldn't. That's just copying some aspects of what we observe, copying isn't an explanation, as I said. And because we don't have that explanation, we don't have an in pprinciple basis to predict whether computer AI will be conscious - because we won't know if the aspects we've copied using a different substrate capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness. If we had an explanation, like the physicalist one we have for brains and tables, we'd know. But we don't.
If you didn't regard either of the above as an explanation, would you need to be able to understand, all at once, how those elementary particles (or simulated elementary particles) are interacting to result in consciousness? If so, I don't think that version of explanation will ever happen. I know from personal experience that even for much, much simpler tasks it's possible to create an entirely deterministic computer simulation and not be able to predict in advance what it's going to do. One of the defining features of neural network simulations in computers is that we don't explicitly program them to carry out a specific task with a list of instructions that map directly to that task. Even though we know how we programmed their individual building blocks, it can still be impossible to predict in advance how they're going to behave.
Right. This is why I talk about an 'in principle' explanation. The complexity involved as you say is for all practical purposes incalcuable. I take that point. That's why I asked if Complexity Theory offers an in principle approach for explaining conscious experience. Do you think it does?
So it may be possible to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the human brain is indeed made from lots and lots of particles whose behaviours and interactions can be described by laws that can be expressed as mathematical equations. But that's not the same as intuitively understanding, all in one go, how those behaviours and interactions are giving rise to consciousness, simply because the system is too complex.
Sure. When some philosophers of mind talk about the hard problem, it is talking about the in principle intractability of the problem. We don't have an scientific theory which can in principle explain conscious experience in terms of particles, forces or anything else. There isn't an established explanatory model like physicalism which gives us the framework for it to be deducible.
Am I missing something significant?
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
-"Sure. When some philosophers of mind talk about the hard problem, it is talking about the in principle intractability of the problem. We don't have an scientific theory which can in principle explain conscious experience in terms of particles, forces or anything else. There isn't an established explanatory model like physicalism which gives us the framework for it to be deducible. "
-Well as I wrote in my reply that you ignored, you wont find a scientific theory explaining conscious experience in terms of particles or forces because consciousness is a biological phenomenon, not a quantum mechanical.
There are many competing hypotheses in a neuroscientific level conveniently presented in the neuroscience podcast link that I sent you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwOfSKmo_I
They are working hypotheses so until we decode the whole process and mechanism its a work in progress.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is strong emergentism a valid view ? And can special sciences have their own laws independent of physics ?
Nick I'm not ignoring your reply, Steve responded to me before you, so I answered him first.NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 20th, 2021, 5:06 pm-"Sure. When some philosophers of mind talk about the hard problem, it is talking about the in principle intractability of the problem. We don't have an scientific theory which can in principle explain conscious experience in terms of particles, forces or anything else. There isn't an established explanatory model like physicalism which gives us the framework for it to be deducible. "
-Well as I wrote in my reply that you ignored, you wont find a scientific theory explaining conscious experience in terms of particles or forces because consciousness is a biological phenomenon, not a quantum mechanical.
There are many competing hypotheses in a neuroscientific level conveniently presented in the neuroscience podcast link that I sent you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGwOfSKmo_I
They are working hypotheses so until we decode the whole process and mechanism its a work in progress.
But I do have a suggestion to start afresh, because our convo is getting unwieldy and I'd like to try to keep it focussed - also to lose the bickery sneering commentary which is just irritating.
I'm still not quite sure what your position is regarding conscious experience. The gist of what I've picked up is you believe it's biological, and that describing the biological processes is as much of an explanation for conscious experience as science can or should offer. And that biology isn't reducible to physics, something new enters the universe with biological processes. If I've read you right? Or that conscious experience is an emergent/reducible property of certain biological processes (namely embodied brains). Or that conscious experience is a different 'something' produced by biological brains which isn't reducible to them.
If you could outline your own position, that would be better than me trying to guess the basis for your objections to mine, and we can can focus on key differences.
My position is that biological and chemical processes are emergent from/reducible to physics. And that the physicalist model of what the world is made of and the forces which account for physical processes is the theoretical explanatory model which the scientific method has come up with to give an in principle full account of the world. What it's made of and what it does.
So if that physicalist model has no place for consciousness, wouldn't in principle have a way of predicting its emergence, then our usual scientific methodology and the explanatory model which was developed from it, looks incomplete or flawed. Which no amount of noting ever more detailed correlations can address.
Furthermore, conscious experience doesn't have the sort of objectively observable and measurable qualities which the scientific toolkit relies on, which might suggest it is radically different type of stuff/property, and/or one which science is not able to fit into explanatory models which rely on being objectively observable/measurable. Which makes the problem of explaining it, potentially a paradigmatic one.
Does that look like a reasonable way to reset our discussion to you?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023