18 ms·

> philosophy is quite relevant I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. > you implicitly claim materialism Nope. In fact, I actually do clai

by lisper 2y ago

> philosophy is quite relevant I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. > you implicitly claim materialism Nope. In fact, I actually do claim all of these things while at the same time denying materialism because quantum mechanics. Molecules don't really exist, just like the force of gravity doesn't really exist. Both are just very good approximations. > For anyone who claims that mind-state is the cause The cause of what? You don't have to get into consciousness at all. Food and water, for example, are clearly integral to human flourishing, and you don't have to get into any metaphysical woo to defend that position. > That’s where it stops being a scientific experiment That's just nonsense. Malnutrition and dying of thirst obviously yield to straightforward scientific inquiry. Like I said, if you want to argue otherwise, the burden is on you to demonstrate some aspect of human flourishing that does not yield to scientific inquiry. I'll bet you can't do it.

strogonoff 2y ago
If you forget to drink water while working for many hours, you may feel dehydrated and poorly. If you remember to drink water, you feel better. Drinking water clearly causes a change in your mind-state. However, drinking water is something you decide (or forget) to do, i.e. it’s obviously caused by your mind in the first place (or that of your partner or another person helpfully bringing you a glass). However, we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds), and even call the general existence of minds into question. Yet further, we could treat that chemical reaction as, in turn, derivable from (or be a representation of) mind-states, yours or otherwise, further down the line. You can see how as far as scientific method is concerned this gets nowhere very quickly—it’s unfalsifiable and outside of what scientific method is equipped to help us with (not a bug, since it’s by design). Naively, it seems that best we could do is 1) acknowledge that uncertainty and perhaps 2) pick a point in the above chain, reason why to believe that point is not arbitrary, and explicitly adopt that as a philosophical position. > I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. We can simply do that, though I did attempt to provide a justification for my position. Philosophy, whether done explicitly or implicitly, always informed the application of scientific method.
- lisper 2y ago
  > we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds) Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to support this hypothesis. > and even call the general existence of minds into question Well, you can call anything into question, but there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of minds. > we could treat that chemical reaction as, in turn, derivable from (or be a representation of) mind-states Well, I suppose we could, but again there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. > You can see how as far as scientific method is concerned this gets nowhere very quickly Sorry, no, I don't see that at all. AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. > Naively, it seems that best we could do is 1) acknowledge that uncertainty Sorry, no, I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. > I did attempt to provide a justification for my position. Yes, but I think your attempt has failed.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    > there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. Not if you look thoroughly. There is no proof that causality runs[0] in either direction, and in all likelihood it would remain so for as long as the hard problem is unsolved. > AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. That would be immensely groundbreaking, absolutely historical news that would eclipse LLMs, reverberate HN for months and would not pass either of us unnoticed. > In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? > I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. > Yes, but I think your attempt has failed. You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. [0] Side note: even though I am guilty of thinking that way myself, I find the whole notion of “causality running” smelling of Cartesian dualism and another inheritance of our religious past. A theory presupposing the existence of two different kinds of things (as in this case, mind vs. physical), while useful in its own ways, is necessarily less elegant than a theory that can manage with one.

by lisper 2y ago

strogonoff 2y ago

If you forget to drink water while working for many hours, you may feel dehydrated and poorly. If you remember to drink water, you feel better. Drinking water clearly causes a change in your mind-state. However, drinking water is something you decide (or forget) to do, i.e. it’s obviously caused by your mind in the first place (or that of your partner or another person helpfully bringing you a glass). However, we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds), and even call the general existence of minds into question. Yet further, we could treat that chemical reaction as, in turn, derivable from (or be a representation of) mind-states, yours or otherwise, further down the line. You can see how as far as scientific method is concerned this gets nowhere very quickly—it’s unfalsifiable and outside of what scientific method is equipped to help us with (not a bug, since it’s by design). Naively, it seems that best we could do is 1) acknowledge that uncertainty and perhaps 2) pick a point in the above chain, reason why to believe that point is not arbitrary, and explicitly adopt that as a philosophical position. > I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. We can simply do that, though I did attempt to provide a justification for my position. Philosophy, whether done explicitly or implicitly, always informed the application of scientific method.

lisper 2y ago
> we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds) Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to support this hypothesis. > and even call the general existence of minds into question Well, you can call anything into question, but there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of minds. > we could treat that chemical reaction as, in turn, derivable from (or be a representation of) mind-states Well, I suppose we could, but again there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. > You can see how as far as scientific method is concerned this gets nowhere very quickly Sorry, no, I don't see that at all. AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. > Naively, it seems that best we could do is 1) acknowledge that uncertainty Sorry, no, I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. > I did attempt to provide a justification for my position. Yes, but I think your attempt has failed.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  > there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. Not if you look thoroughly. There is no proof that causality runs[0] in either direction, and in all likelihood it would remain so for as long as the hard problem is unsolved. > AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. That would be immensely groundbreaking, absolutely historical news that would eclipse LLMs, reverberate HN for months and would not pass either of us unnoticed. > In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? > I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. > Yes, but I think your attempt has failed. You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. [0] Side note: even though I am guilty of thinking that way myself, I find the whole notion of “causality running” smelling of Cartesian dualism and another inheritance of our religious past. A theory presupposing the existence of two different kinds of things (as in this case, mind vs. physical), while useful in its own ways, is necessarily less elegant than a theory that can manage with one.