5 ms·

>There's nothing brains do that cannot be explained in terms of atoms. But the relationship between brain chemistry and consciousness is at best correlating ce

>There's nothing brains do that cannot be explained in terms of atoms. But the relationship between brain chemistry and consciousness is at best correlating certain conscious states with certain neurological states. The question is why there is consciousness at all. Maybe it's an emergent phenomena, sure, but it's not clear to me how the arising of consciousness from matter can be completely characterized through science. One reason is because science deals only with physical things, but consciousness is a non-physical thing. No doubt there is relevant science, but I don't know that science alone provides an explanation for why we are not philosophical zombies. You can, of course, take Dennett's view that qualia don't really exist, but in defending this view he did a lot of... philosophy. And QFT explaining laws of nature would be strange considering QFT is included in the laws of nature. >teleology Well, I'm not positing that there's any purpose or telos involved in these explanations, just that there are explanations---there are reasons why things are the way they are ("why" in the sense of material or efficient causes, not final causes). >It is an open question whether there is an "ultimate, necessary explanation to things". But science can shed some light on that by demonstrating that if there is an "ultimate, necessary explanation to things" it almost certainly has nothing to do with us humans. We're just the result of rolling countless trillions of cosmic dice in one tiny corner of the multiverse. That's not the answer that most people who ask the question of "ultimate, necessary explanation to things" want to hear, but all the evidence points to that being the truth. And so the best explanation of people asking this question hoping for a different answer is that they are engaging in the same kind of wishful thinking as, say, erstwhile inventors of perpetual motion machines. Science can't prove that it's impossible to do an end-run around the laws of thermodynamics, but there is still a reason that perpetual motion is the canonical example of crackpottery. So my point here is simply related to your first sentence---there are philosophical arguments as to why there must be an ultimate, necessary explanation, and there are philosophical reasons to believe these arguments fail. But I don't see science as being sufficient for adjudicating this dispute, as I think you'd agree. (I would agree with your point about how science shows us just how small humanity is in the larger cosmos, though I'm not sure that's necessarily in contradiction with religion. But that's a whole other can of worms.)

lisper 2y ago
> But the relationship between brain chemistry and consciousness is at best correlating certain conscious states with certain neurological states. How ironic that you would say that in a thread about Daniel Dennett's passing. You have obviously not read "Consciousness Explained." > And QFT explaining laws of nature would be strange considering QFT is included in the laws of nature. You should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q&pp=ygUPZmV5bm1hbiBtYWduZXRz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q&pp=ygUPZmV5bm1hb... > there are philosophical arguments as to why there must be an ultimate, necessary explanation Yes, obviously. There are arguments for why the earth must be flat too. Why should I care about either? They're just wrong.
- knightoffaith 2y ago
  >How ironic that you would say that in a thread about Daniel Dennett's passing. You have obviously not read "Consciousness Explained." I mean, Dennett is denying the existence of qualia altogether, as I said, via philosophical argumentation. The argument that science tells the full story here is itself a philosophical one. >You should watch this: Yes, the bottoming out of explanations is exactly what's at stake. The idea of a necessary explanation is that the answer to the question of "why?" is that it must be that way, that it could not have been any other way---that's what it means for an explanation to be necessary. And there are arguments why there must be such a thing that could not have been any other way, and arguments against it---it's within the realm of philosophy. Feynman is right to note that scientific explanations can go no further past a certain point. It's a bit ironic that Feynman was so anti-philosophy when he gave a rather philosophical answer to what might seem like a straightforward scientific question at first glance. >Yes, obviously. There are arguments for why the earth must be flat too. Why should I care about either? They're just wrong. Well, the discipline of philosophy also includes people pointing out reasons why such arguments don't work, which seems worthwhile, just like science includes reasons why arguments for the flatness of the earth are untenable and reasons why the roundness of the earth is a far better explanation for the data.
  - lisper 2y ago
    > Dennett is denying the existence of qualia altogether Not quite. Dennett's thesis is that qualia are illusions, not that they don't exist. Illusions exist, they are just sensory perceptions that don't reflect any actual underlying physical reality. > The idea of a necessary explanation is that the answer to the question of "why?" is that it must be that way Yes, I know that's the idea. But you can't get past the anthropic principle. Even if that is not the ultimate explanation, the fact that it could be, and the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that humans are not privileged in any way, means that even if there is a better answer, we can never find it because we can never rule out the anthropic principle. We have to make our peace with that, just as we have to make our peace with the Second Law and the halting problem. > Well, the discipline of philosophy also includes people pointing out reasons why such arguments don't work, which seems worthwhile, just like science includes reasons why arguments for the flatness of the earth are untenable and reasons why the roundness of the earth is a far better explanation for the data. Actually, scientists don't spend a lot of time debunking flat-earthers. They just write them off as crackpots who are not worth the bother. You're not going to get an NSF grant to study whether or not the earth is round.

lisper 2y ago

> But the relationship between brain chemistry and consciousness is at best correlating certain conscious states with certain neurological states. How ironic that you would say that in a thread about Daniel Dennett's passing. You have obviously not read "Consciousness Explained." > And QFT explaining laws of nature would be strange considering QFT is included in the laws of nature. You should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q&pp=ygUPZmV5bm1hbiBtYWduZXRz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q&pp=ygUPZmV5bm1hb... > there are philosophical arguments as to why there must be an ultimate, necessary explanation Yes, obviously. There are arguments for why the earth must be flat too. Why should I care about either? They're just wrong.

knightoffaith 2y ago
>How ironic that you would say that in a thread about Daniel Dennett's passing. You have obviously not read "Consciousness Explained." I mean, Dennett is denying the existence of qualia altogether, as I said, via philosophical argumentation. The argument that science tells the full story here is itself a philosophical one. >You should watch this: Yes, the bottoming out of explanations is exactly what's at stake. The idea of a necessary explanation is that the answer to the question of "why?" is that it must be that way, that it could not have been any other way---that's what it means for an explanation to be necessary. And there are arguments why there must be such a thing that could not have been any other way, and arguments against it---it's within the realm of philosophy. Feynman is right to note that scientific explanations can go no further past a certain point. It's a bit ironic that Feynman was so anti-philosophy when he gave a rather philosophical answer to what might seem like a straightforward scientific question at first glance. >Yes, obviously. There are arguments for why the earth must be flat too. Why should I care about either? They're just wrong. Well, the discipline of philosophy also includes people pointing out reasons why such arguments don't work, which seems worthwhile, just like science includes reasons why arguments for the flatness of the earth are untenable and reasons why the roundness of the earth is a far better explanation for the data.
- lisper 2y ago
  > Dennett is denying the existence of qualia altogether Not quite. Dennett's thesis is that qualia are illusions, not that they don't exist. Illusions exist, they are just sensory perceptions that don't reflect any actual underlying physical reality. > The idea of a necessary explanation is that the answer to the question of "why?" is that it must be that way Yes, I know that's the idea. But you can't get past the anthropic principle. Even if that is not the ultimate explanation, the fact that it could be, and the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that humans are not privileged in any way, means that even if there is a better answer, we can never find it because we can never rule out the anthropic principle. We have to make our peace with that, just as we have to make our peace with the Second Law and the halting problem. > Well, the discipline of philosophy also includes people pointing out reasons why such arguments don't work, which seems worthwhile, just like science includes reasons why arguments for the flatness of the earth are untenable and reasons why the roundness of the earth is a far better explanation for the data. Actually, scientists don't spend a lot of time debunking flat-earthers. They just write them off as crackpots who are not worth the bother. You're not going to get an NSF grant to study whether or not the earth is round.