Wrong, science has found tons of evidence that links phenomenal consciousness to neural mechanisms in animal brains.
The mind begs the question
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
QUOTE>Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:57 amI cannot see a logical justification for rejecting (or accepting) any hypothesis without evidence to support your conclusion. You have no evidence to support your unsubstantiated beliefs. You reject the hypothesis solely based on the lack of evidence to support it, even though there is no evidence to refute it either. Illogical, Captain.
"At a first approximation, we can take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence—or more broadly and less memorably, we can take the lack of positive evidence for some hypothesis to be evidence against the hypothesis—just in case we have good reason to believe that if the hypothesis were true, we would have positive evidence."
(McGrew, Timothy. "Evidence." In The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, edited by Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, 58-67. New York: Routledge, 2011. p. 64)
<QUOTE
We have good reason to believe that if panpsychism were true, scientists would find some positive evidence for specific physical/chemical systems or mechanisms in nonbiological objects (* which can plausibly be regarded as substrates and correlates of mental/experiential states. No such evidence has ever been found by scientists, with this being a case where absence of evidence does amount to evidence of absence; so the rejection of the panpsychist hypothesis is justified. (* rocks, stones, single crystals, single molecules, single atoms, or single particles)
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
Lol okay, then present one evidence.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The mind begs the question
Yes, they do vary. This is very trivially the case. Examples include the shape of objects from different spatiotemporal situatedness, Doppler shifts, etc.Atla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 11:31 amThis idea of yours has already been addressed in some other topic too. The properties that science measures don't vary depending on spatiotemporal situatedness, they are not unique. Only their spatiotemporal situatedness is unique.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:29 amScience can't measure the properties of anything from the spatiotemporal situatedness of being the thing that's measured. And the spatiotemporal situatedness of being the thing that's measured always has unique properties from that situatedness. We're ALWAYS just measuring correlations to those unique properties. This isn't at all something exclusive to mental phenomena. So that doesn't work as an objection, unless you're going to equally object to all scientific measurement period.Atla wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 11:58 pmA scientific measurement actually MEASURES something.Faustus5 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 4:54 pm
Hate to break it to you, but nobodies on random Internet discussion forums are not now and never will be in a position to dictate what does and does not constitute a "scientific measurement". That determination is up to scientists, specifically here, cognitive neuroscientists. And they are perfectly happy with the reports of subjects regarding their subjective experiences being scientific data in good standing. If you have a science based reason for thinking they are mistaken (you don't), please do submit your thoughts to the appropriate peer reviewed journal so the scientific community can be bathed in your superior wisdom.
As for the "taking it on faith" part, if said subjects' reports consistently pair up with the same kinds of internal events from subject to subject (and they do), no faith whatsoever is involved.
You don't measure internal events, as neuroscience hasn't found a way to do that. It can only measure external correlates and collect reports. Neuroscience can't tell whether or not internal events actually exist, it just takes it on faith.
That's the the problem, shows that you never once in your life stopped to think about it.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
The percieved shape of the object doesn't change the shape of the object, the percieved Doppler shift of the wave doesn't change the wave.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:26 pm Yes, they do vary. This is very trivially the case. Examples include the shape of objects from different spatiotemporal situatedness, Doppler shifts, etc.
Nor is there a reason why such differences should change the nature of properties. The shape just gets distorted, the wave just gets distorted. It's the same kind of property as before, just distorted.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The mind begs the question
So, we're not talking about a perceived shape (in other words, we're not requiring persons to have perceptions), we're talking about the shape of the object from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness. That particular spatiotemporal situatedness would be correlated with perceptions, but it's not the same thing as them, because it obtains whether any people do or not.Atla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:38 pmThe percieved shape of the object doesn't change the shape of the objectTerrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:26 pm Yes, they do vary. This is very trivially the case. Examples include the shape of objects from different spatiotemporal situatedness, Doppler shifts, etc.
Part of the point here is that any location we pick for what properties obtain in a given x is just another spatiotemporal situatedness. There is no preferred spatiotemporal situatedness and no "situatedness-free" spatiotemporal situatedness. So there's no preferred situatedness for what the shape of x is. It has shape x at location L and shape y at location M.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
By 'perceived' I meant 'apparent'. The apparent shape of the object changes with our relative location, but its actual shape is constant.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:42 pmSo, we're not talking about a perceived shape (in other words, we're not requiring persons to have perceptions), we're talking about the shape of the object from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness. That particular spatiotemporal situatedness would be correlated with perceptions, but it's not the same thing as them, because it obtains whether any people do or not.Atla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:38 pmThe percieved shape of the object doesn't change the shape of the objectTerrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:26 pm Yes, they do vary. This is very trivially the case. Examples include the shape of objects from different spatiotemporal situatedness, Doppler shifts, etc.
Part of the point here is that any location we pick for what properties obtain in a given x is just another spatiotemporal situatedness. There is no preferred spatiotemporal situatedness and no "situatedness-free" spatiotemporal situatedness. So there's no preferred situatedness for what the shape of x is. It has shape x at location L and shape y at location M.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The mind begs the question
Atla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:59 pmBy 'perceived' I meant 'apparent'. The apparent shape of the object changes with our relative location, but its actual shape is constant.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:42 pmSo, we're not talking about a perceived shape (in other words, we're not requiring persons to have perceptions), we're talking about the shape of the object from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness. That particular spatiotemporal situatedness would be correlated with perceptions, but it's not the same thing as them, because it obtains whether any people do or not.Atla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:38 pmThe percieved shape of the object doesn't change the shape of the objectTerrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 2:26 pm Yes, they do vary. This is very trivially the case. Examples include the shape of objects from different spatiotemporal situatedness, Doppler shifts, etc.
Part of the point here is that any location we pick for what properties obtain in a given x is just another spatiotemporal situatedness. There is no preferred spatiotemporal situatedness and no "situatedness-free" spatiotemporal situatedness. So there's no preferred situatedness for what the shape of x is. It has shape x at location L and shape y at location M.
"Actual" versus "perceived" in that sense presupposes a preferred spatiotemporal situatedness. But there is no such thing.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
It doesn't presuppose that, it's the absolute perspective vs the relative perspective. Science strives for objectivity, even if it's unattainable.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 4:50 pmAtla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:59 pmBy 'perceived' I meant 'apparent'. The apparent shape of the object changes with our relative location, but its actual shape is constant.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:42 pmSo, we're not talking about a perceived shape (in other words, we're not requiring persons to have perceptions), we're talking about the shape of the object from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness. That particular spatiotemporal situatedness would be correlated with perceptions, but it's not the same thing as them, because it obtains whether any people do or not.
Part of the point here is that any location we pick for what properties obtain in a given x is just another spatiotemporal situatedness. There is no preferred spatiotemporal situatedness and no "situatedness-free" spatiotemporal situatedness. So there's no preferred situatedness for what the shape of x is. It has shape x at location L and shape y at location M.
"Actual" versus "perceived" in that sense presupposes a preferred spatiotemporal situatedness. But there is no such thing.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The mind begs the question
The whole point being that there is no "absolute perspective"--the whole idea of that is incoherent/nonsense. "Objectivity" doesn't denote something not relative. It doesn't denote something "absolute."Atla wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 12:16 amIt doesn't presuppose that, it's the absolute perspective vs the relative perspective. Science strives for objectivity, even if it's unattainable.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 4:50 pmAtla wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:59 pmBy 'perceived' I meant 'apparent'. The apparent shape of the object changes with our relative location, but its actual shape is constant.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 3:42 pm
So, we're not talking about a perceived shape (in other words, we're not requiring persons to have perceptions), we're talking about the shape of the object from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness. That particular spatiotemporal situatedness would be correlated with perceptions, but it's not the same thing as them, because it obtains whether any people do or not.
Part of the point here is that any location we pick for what properties obtain in a given x is just another spatiotemporal situatedness. There is no preferred spatiotemporal situatedness and no "situatedness-free" spatiotemporal situatedness. So there's no preferred situatedness for what the shape of x is. It has shape x at location L and shape y at location M.
"Actual" versus "perceived" in that sense presupposes a preferred spatiotemporal situatedness. But there is no such thing.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8382
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The mind begs the question
Consul wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 1:58 pm QUOTE>
"At a first approximation, we can take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence—or more broadly and less memorably, we can take the lack of positive evidence for some hypothesis to be evidence against the hypothesis—just in case we have good reason to believe that if the hypothesis were true, we would have positive evidence."
(McGrew, Timothy. "Evidence." In The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, edited by Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, 58-67. New York: Routledge, 2011. p. 64)
<QUOTE
If you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I don't know how I can continue to communicate with you. Your understanding of logic is fundamentally different to mine, and to all the other people who do NOT believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I thought it was a well-known logical fallacy; I certainly see it as so. But you do not. Logically, we have no common ground, so we cannot meaningfully communicate. I withdraw from this small part of a sub-thread, and I wish you well.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
This has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by the effects of brain injuries, brain diseases, anaestethics, psychopharmaceuticals, and narcotics on mind and consciousness.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
If you had read the above quote slowly, you would have noticed that the claim is not that the absence of evidence is always, i.e. unconditionally, evidence of absence, but only "just in case we have good reason to believe that if the hypothesis were true, we would have positive evidence."Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 8:49 amIf you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I don't know how I can continue to communicate with you. Your understanding of logic is fundamentally different to mine, and to all the other people who do NOT believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I thought it was a well-known logical fallacy; I certainly see it as so. But you do not. Logically, we have no common ground, so we cannot meaningfully communicate. I withdraw from this small part of a sub-thread, and I wish you well.Consul wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 1:58 pm QUOTE>
"At a first approximation, we can take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence—or more broadly and less memorably, we can take the lack of positive evidence for some hypothesis to be evidence against the hypothesis—just in case we have good reason to believe that if the hypothesis were true, we would have positive evidence."
(McGrew, Timothy. "Evidence." In The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, edited by Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, 58-67. New York: Routledge, 2011. p. 64)
<QUOTE
For example, when you look in your fridge, and there is no evidence for the presence of a bottle of milk in it, then this does amount to evidence for the absence of a bottle of milk in it; and you're thereby evidentially justified in believing that there is no bottle of milk in your fridge. For if there were one in it, you would certainly find evidence for its presence by seeing the thing.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
Objectivity / the absolute perspective is an ideal, that does denote something not relative. It's an ideal, not a literal perspective.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 7:15 amThe whole point being that there is no "absolute perspective"--the whole idea of that is incoherent/nonsense. "Objectivity" doesn't denote something not relative. It doesn't denote something "absolute."Atla wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2021, 12:16 amIt doesn't presuppose that, it's the absolute perspective vs the relative perspective. Science strives for objectivity, even if it's unattainable.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 4:50 pm
"Actual" versus "perceived" in that sense presupposes a preferred spatiotemporal situatedness. But there is no such thing.
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