8 ms·

> Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis, because it doesn't explain anything. It's also not falsifiable, so

> Why is that the same as 'giving up'? I call it a better hypothesis. It's not a hypothesis, because it doesn't explain anything. It's also not falsifiable, so it is not useful for the purposes of science. > It's like saying there is a halting problem and there are problems that are fundamentally unsolvable by computers The halting problem is a rigorously defined mathematical problem which has a mathematical proof that demonstrates that it is indeed unsolvable. That's entirely different from saying that "there might be such a thing as a halting problem and it's probably unsolvable". Furthermore, the halting problem is abstract from physical reality. It is true regardless of anything observed in physical reality. In physical reality, there is no such thing as a program that will not terminate, because there is no such thing as a computer that runs forever. The "physical halting problem" is solvable. The answer is always: The program will halt at some point because of thermodynamics. Similarly, it is my position that the physical phenomenon of intelligence can be entirely explained by natural processes involving no metaphysics whatsoever. > Instead, perhaps the mind is a halting oracle, and we can progress even further in the sciences by that realization. Perhaps it is, but there is no such realization. You haven't even defined what you mean by intelligence and why that would even require a non-materialist explanation.

yters 7y ago
Well then, how is materialism falsifiable? If it isn't, how is it a scientific hypothesis?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Well then, how is materialism falsifiable? If it isn't, how is it a scientific hypothesis? It isn't a scientific hypothesis. You use the word "materialism" to segregate yourself philosophically, but I haven't made a philosophical argument. Let's suppose your "hypothesis" is true, but given that it is beyond physical observation, we can never hope to know that it is true or even know the probability of it being true. Then what would be the benefit in assuming that it is true? We could conceivably save some time on trying to figure out AGI and instead do something "more productive". However, that's true of almost any endeavor. Anything you do in life has a chance of failure and an opportunity cost. Just imagine what could have become of us, had we not bothered to write HN comments!
  - yters 7y ago
    Ok, then if materialism isn't a scientific hypothesis, why is it scientific?
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      I don't know what "materialism is scientific" would mean exactly. I never made that claim, so don't ask me to defend it. Remember, you are the one who wants to fight this "materialism vs. dualism" battle, not me. I'm not saying your position is wrong. I'm saying your position seems inconsequential at best, but harmful at worst. To illustrate this, let's take a hypothetical "dualist" explanation for disease: "Disease is caused by spirits that attach to our bodies, but we cannot observe these spirits by any physical means and we can never interact with them in any distinguishable way." In other words, we cannot perform experiments, we cannot learn anything, so these spirits might as well not exist at all. There is no practical difference. Now that's all fine and well until you realize that disease is actually caused by physical processes than you can understand and intervene with. Had you been convinced that it was spirits all along, you wouldn't have bothered trying to figure out the physical processes. Today this example may sound ridiculous, but for most of history similar convictions held people back from turning quackery into real medicine.
      - yters 7y ago
        And on the materialist side we have similar quackery with phrenology, bogus medicines, Darwinian evolution, and the like. There is quackery everywhere. The fact that one can concoct a false explanation within either materialism or dualism means such an example doesn't help determine which paradigm is better. The important question is whether one paradigm allows us to explain reality better than the other, and dualism does this very well. There is no materialistic explanation for consciousness, free will, abstract thought or mathematics. Instead, those who follow materialism strictly end up denying such things, and we end up with incoherent and inaccurate theories about the world.
        gridlockd 7y ago

yters 7y ago

Well then, how is materialism falsifiable? If it isn't, how is it a scientific hypothesis?

gridlockd 7y ago
> Well then, how is materialism falsifiable? If it isn't, how is it a scientific hypothesis? It isn't a scientific hypothesis. You use the word "materialism" to segregate yourself philosophically, but I haven't made a philosophical argument. Let's suppose your "hypothesis" is true, but given that it is beyond physical observation, we can never hope to know that it is true or even know the probability of it being true. Then what would be the benefit in assuming that it is true? We could conceivably save some time on trying to figure out AGI and instead do something "more productive". However, that's true of almost any endeavor. Anything you do in life has a chance of failure and an opportunity cost. Just imagine what could have become of us, had we not bothered to write HN comments!
- yters 7y ago
  Ok, then if materialism isn't a scientific hypothesis, why is it scientific?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    I don't know what "materialism is scientific" would mean exactly. I never made that claim, so don't ask me to defend it. Remember, you are the one who wants to fight this "materialism vs. dualism" battle, not me. I'm not saying your position is wrong. I'm saying your position seems inconsequential at best, but harmful at worst. To illustrate this, let's take a hypothetical "dualist" explanation for disease: "Disease is caused by spirits that attach to our bodies, but we cannot observe these spirits by any physical means and we can never interact with them in any distinguishable way." In other words, we cannot perform experiments, we cannot learn anything, so these spirits might as well not exist at all. There is no practical difference. Now that's all fine and well until you realize that disease is actually caused by physical processes than you can understand and intervene with. Had you been convinced that it was spirits all along, you wouldn't have bothered trying to figure out the physical processes. Today this example may sound ridiculous, but for most of history similar convictions held people back from turning quackery into real medicine.
    - yters 7y ago
      And on the materialist side we have similar quackery with phrenology, bogus medicines, Darwinian evolution, and the like. There is quackery everywhere. The fact that one can concoct a false explanation within either materialism or dualism means such an example doesn't help determine which paradigm is better. The important question is whether one paradigm allows us to explain reality better than the other, and dualism does this very well. There is no materialistic explanation for consciousness, free will, abstract thought or mathematics. Instead, those who follow materialism strictly end up denying such things, and we end up with incoherent and inaccurate theories about the world.
      - gridlockd 7y ago