Whatever, if you don't know what expressions like "scientific problem" or "philosophical problem" typically mean, use Google. 500k+ hits each.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 18th, 2021, 6:07 pmYou're not thinking that something becomes a fact due to consensus or agreement are you? (That is, aside from the fact that there is a consensus or an agreement.)Atla wrote: ↑April 18th, 2021, 1:23 amAccording to you, there are no facts of any kind then. For example there are no "scientific facts", only consensus opinions shared by most people.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 17th, 2021, 6:09 pmSure. No problem with that.
"Commonly considered" doesn't amount to "correct." It's always an opinion that anything is a problem, regardless of whether anyone believes that it can somehow be other than an opinion or not.where it's usually considered a fact that there's a problem.
That's correct on some level, but on the relevant level of discussion you are misusing the words fact and problem.
The mind begs the question
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
- Faustus5
- Posts: 306
- Joined: May 8th, 2020, 10:08 am
Re: The mind begs the question
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.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
A scientific measurement actually MEASURES something.Faustus5 wrote: ↑April 19th, 2021, 4:54 pmHate 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.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
No, if "we follow the evidence, or lack thereof," we find no scientific justification for the panpsychistic belief in nonbiological consciousness.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The mind begs the question
Nor do we find "scientific justification" to dismiss the "panpsychistic belief in nonbiological consciousness". There is none in either case, I suspect. Such a matter is outside the bailiwick of science. Consciousness might be ineluctably linked to our physical bodies, and it might be that it can be supported by different platforms than biological human bodies. We don't know. So we cannot say, correctly, that "nonbiological consciousness" does or does not, can or cannot, exist.
But surely you know this?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
In that case we find no scientific justification for biological phenomenal consciousness either.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
Yes, we do, because, for example, there aren't any physicochemical structures and processes in rocks or stones that can plausibly be regarded as sensory systems, let alone as ones capable of realizing subjective sentience.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 11:58 amNor do we find "scientific justification" to dismiss the "panpsychistic belief in nonbiological consciousness".
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The mind begs the question
So, because you know of no platform (other than a biological human one) that could support consciousness, there is no such platform? You're that sure? How?Consul wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 1:07 pmYes, we do, because, for example, there aren't any physicochemical structures and processes in rocks or stones that can plausibly be regarded as sensory systems, let alone as ones capable of realizing subjective sentience.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 11:58 amNor do we find "scientific justification" to dismiss the "panpsychistic belief in nonbiological consciousness".
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
Unless panpsychists succeed in identifying mechanisms in nonbiological entities which are scientifically plausible "platforms" of consciousness, I'm justified in rejecting their belief in nonbiological consciousness.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 1:29 pmSo, because you know of no platform (other than a biological human one) that could support consciousness, there is no such platform? You're that sure? How?
- 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
Science 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 pmHate 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.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The mind begs the question
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2021, 1:29 pm So, because you know of no platform (other than a biological human one) that could support consciousness, there is no such platform? You're that sure? How?
So, unless those who disagree with you provide evidence, of a standard specified by you, you are justified in rejecting their hypotheses? You assert - without justification - that your beliefs must stand until someone else conclusively refutes them for you. I think it might be worth reviewing your understanding of justification, and of the principles of (logical and scientific) intellectual inquiry.
"Who cares, wins"
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The mind begs the question
The justificational standard panpsychists are expected to meet is pretty simple: Observe and scrutinize nonbiological objects, and see if you can find mechanisms therein which can plausibly function as realizers of subjective sentience/experience! If they cannot find any, then I am justified in rejecting their hypothesis. Have they found any? No, they haven't!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:31 amSo, unless those who disagree with you provide evidence, of a standard specified by you, you are justified in rejecting their hypotheses? You assert - without justification - that your beliefs must stand until someone else conclusively refutes them for you. I think it might be worth reviewing your understanding of justification, and of the principles of (logical and scientific) intellectual inquiry.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The mind begs the question
I 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.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: The mind begs the question
This 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 pmHate 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
Science has found zero evidence that links phenomenal consciousness to mechanisms that realize subjective sentience/experience.Consul wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 10:32 amThe justificational standard panpsychists are expected to meet is pretty simple: Observe and scrutinize nonbiological objects, and see if you can find mechanisms therein which can plausibly function as realizers of subjective sentience/experience! If they cannot find any, then I am justified in rejecting their hypothesis. Have they found any? No, they haven't!Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 21st, 2021, 7:31 amSo, unless those who disagree with you provide evidence, of a standard specified by you, you are justified in rejecting their hypotheses? You assert - without justification - that your beliefs must stand until someone else conclusively refutes them for you. I think it might be worth reviewing your understanding of justification, and of the principles of (logical and scientific) intellectual inquiry.
You've been at this denial stage for years Consul, why don't you just skip it instead and investigate the fundamental assumptions of Western civilization about the nature of reality?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 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