3 ms·

> Vitalism and dualistic theories of consciousness both belong in the dustbin of history. Science adopted materialism as it's guiding philosophy prematurely. W

> Vitalism and dualistic theories of consciousness both belong in the dustbin of history. Science adopted materialism as it's guiding philosophy prematurely. We've since added electromagnetism and quantum theory to science, but still the hope for the falsification of vitalism persists.

naasking 8y ago
What's premature about it? It seems to have been hugely successful given we're probably talking to each other from across the world. One could argue that, epistemically at least, a mathematical monism might be better placed as a foundation, but that doesn't change any of the facts we've discovered based on materialism. If you're in fact arguing for some sort of dualism, there is little reason to accept it beyond unconvincing philosophical speculation.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  "Unconvincing philosophical speculation" sounds like, to use the legal term, "assumes facts not in evidence". But to me, claiming that consciousness does not require dualism also seems to require facts not in evidence, that is, it seems to be merely unconvincing philosophical speculation.
  - naasking 8y ago
    If you want the nuanced argument: not requiring dualism to explain consciousness is indeed a belief, but founded on a long history of scientific success in toppling similar matters, and an analogously long history of failure to convince that consciousness will not fit into a scientific framework (for analogous reasons of vitalism's failure to do the same for life). So on balance of evidence, there is little reason to think dualism will ever be required and considerable reason to think it will not. So much so, that I firmly stand by my original statement. To clarify the "unconvincing philosophical speculation", I meant thought experiments, like p-zombies, that are supposed to convince one that there is something more to consciousness than can be captured by materialism, but which primarily appeal to vague intuitions and make use of semantic tricks of natural language to convince people that there's something of substance going on.

naasking 8y ago

What's premature about it? It seems to have been hugely successful given we're probably talking to each other from across the world. One could argue that, epistemically at least, a mathematical monism might be better placed as a foundation, but that doesn't change any of the facts we've discovered based on materialism. If you're in fact arguing for some sort of dualism, there is little reason to accept it beyond unconvincing philosophical speculation.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
"Unconvincing philosophical speculation" sounds like, to use the legal term, "assumes facts not in evidence". But to me, claiming that consciousness does not require dualism also seems to require facts not in evidence, that is, it seems to be merely unconvincing philosophical speculation.
- naasking 8y ago
  If you want the nuanced argument: not requiring dualism to explain consciousness is indeed a belief, but founded on a long history of scientific success in toppling similar matters, and an analogously long history of failure to convince that consciousness will not fit into a scientific framework (for analogous reasons of vitalism's failure to do the same for life). So on balance of evidence, there is little reason to think dualism will ever be required and considerable reason to think it will not. So much so, that I firmly stand by my original statement. To clarify the "unconvincing philosophical speculation", I meant thought experiments, like p-zombies, that are supposed to convince one that there is something more to consciousness than can be captured by materialism, but which primarily appeal to vague intuitions and make use of semantic tricks of natural language to convince people that there's something of substance going on.