10 ms·

How do you know that change happens all the time? Are you observing all things and all modes of being? We don't go looking for evidence for all things in the s

by kessog 2y ago

How do you know that change happens all the time? Are you observing all things and all modes of being? We don't go looking for evidence for all things in the same way. When we ask, "is the match still lit?" we can answer that question by observing the match. But that is nothing like the way we go about answering questions about the reality of natural laws, numbers, the room you are in, past events, future possibilities, laws of logic, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. with each of these, we don't always attempt to use empirical, visible evidence to prove their existence. Only very specific questions about the physical universe can be answered with the scientific method. By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - this is a fallacy.

dghf 2y ago
> How do you know that change happens all the time? Because ... it does? Things move. The kettle boils and then cools. There's a grey hair that wasn't there yesterday. > By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. But we attribute consciousness to other human beings in the first place precisely because of physical evidence: their behaviours, expressions, speech acts, etc., and the apparent correlates of those in measured brain activity; and the lack of such evidence is why we don't (usually) attribute consciousness to, say, stuffed toys or mannequins. If it is irrational to assume (provisionally, and pending the possible discovery of further evidence to the contrary) that dead people are not conscious because they don't exhibit such physical evidence, it is presumably also irrational to assume the same of stuffed toys: after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- kessog 2y ago
  Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It rate limits my account and prevents me from responding. On HN we aren't supposed to just downvote things because we disagree with them, this isn't Reddit and it destroys any possibility of debate. "Because it does" isn't an argument I'm afraid. If you can use "because it does" so can I. In debate this is called begging the question, the question in this case being "how do you know that it does?". This also destroys any possibility of debate. You need to justify your argumentation, otherwise this isn't a debate at all. So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? This is a question of epistemic certitude.
  - dghf 2y ago
    > Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It’s not me who’s downvoting you. > So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? If you’re seriously going to argue that change doesn’t happen —- and happen constantly —- then I don’t know what to tell you. This very thread is evidence of that: first there were no comments, then one, then several. In the process of its creation and consumption, millions of electrons have travelled from device to device, and millions of photons from screen to eyeball, and millions of signals from neuron to neuron. And that’s just from the activities of one small group from one species on one planet. I can’t say for certain that there’s nowhere in the universe in a state of stasis: but certainly locally, things are pretty busy.
    - kessog 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - dghf 2y ago
    (Replying to this comment rather than your latest, as that's been downvoted out of existence.) > In that case sorry for the accusation. No worries. > With this you haven't given me epistemic justification, you're just telling a story. How do you know that the past happened at all on your criteria of what constitutes reasonable evidence? It isn't material. You can't touch the past, you can't pick the past up and move it. You can't actually observe it at all. If the only evidences we are allowed to use are physical evidences, it's impossible to know that the past wasn't just an illusion. The point is that in your criteria for what constitutes reasonable evidence, knowledge of anything becomes impossible - all things could simply be illusory. While that's great for stoned conversations at 3am, it's not very useful. If I'm going to come to any reasoned conclusion about the world at all, I have to make certain working assumptions, most fundamentally that my perceptions, memories, and my powers of reason are all more or less generally reliable (e.g., I'm currently in my kitchen, and not on top of Mount Kilimanjaro; I was born and brought up in 20th-century Britain, not 14th-century Vietnam; if X implies Y and Y implies Z, then X does in fact transitively imply Z). Obviously, these are all subject to the proviso that I may be (and often will be) mistaken in any specific instance. If I don't make such assumptions -- if I just conclude that I can never know anything about the world, not even provisionally -- then what's the point in doing anything? I may as well just sit here and rot. After all, my life (and my growing hunger and thirst pains) are all just illusions, for all I know. Finally, if you're going to insist that something as basic as the existence of change needs to be demonstrated with "epistemic certitude" for any debate, then such debate is going to be needlessly prolonged and tiresome -- and arguably in bad faith, as the very existence of a debate is predicated on the existence of change.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by kessog 2y ago

dghf 2y ago

> How do you know that change happens all the time? Because ... it does? Things move. The kettle boils and then cools. There's a grey hair that wasn't there yesterday. > By limiting the question of consciousness purely to the observed, physical world, you're making the evidence criteria arbitrarily and impossibly narrow, in a way that you wouldn't for many other types of question. But we attribute consciousness to other human beings in the first place precisely because of physical evidence: their behaviours, expressions, speech acts, etc., and the apparent correlates of those in measured brain activity; and the lack of such evidence is why we don't (usually) attribute consciousness to, say, stuffed toys or mannequins. If it is irrational to assume (provisionally, and pending the possible discovery of further evidence to the contrary) that dead people are not conscious because they don't exhibit such physical evidence, it is presumably also irrational to assume the same of stuffed toys: after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

kessog 2y ago
Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It rate limits my account and prevents me from responding. On HN we aren't supposed to just downvote things because we disagree with them, this isn't Reddit and it destroys any possibility of debate. "Because it does" isn't an argument I'm afraid. If you can use "because it does" so can I. In debate this is called begging the question, the question in this case being "how do you know that it does?". This also destroys any possibility of debate. You need to justify your argumentation, otherwise this isn't a debate at all. So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? This is a question of epistemic certitude.
- dghf 2y ago
  > Before I can continue this conversation I'm going to have to ask you to please stop downvoting my responses. It’s not me who’s downvoting you. > So again, how do you know that change happens all the time? If you’re seriously going to argue that change doesn’t happen —- and happen constantly —- then I don’t know what to tell you. This very thread is evidence of that: first there were no comments, then one, then several. In the process of its creation and consumption, millions of electrons have travelled from device to device, and millions of photons from screen to eyeball, and millions of signals from neuron to neuron. And that’s just from the activities of one small group from one species on one planet. I can’t say for certain that there’s nowhere in the universe in a state of stasis: but certainly locally, things are pretty busy.
  - kessog 2y ago
    [flagged]
- dghf 2y ago
  (Replying to this comment rather than your latest, as that's been downvoted out of existence.) > In that case sorry for the accusation. No worries. > With this you haven't given me epistemic justification, you're just telling a story. How do you know that the past happened at all on your criteria of what constitutes reasonable evidence? It isn't material. You can't touch the past, you can't pick the past up and move it. You can't actually observe it at all. If the only evidences we are allowed to use are physical evidences, it's impossible to know that the past wasn't just an illusion. The point is that in your criteria for what constitutes reasonable evidence, knowledge of anything becomes impossible - all things could simply be illusory. While that's great for stoned conversations at 3am, it's not very useful. If I'm going to come to any reasoned conclusion about the world at all, I have to make certain working assumptions, most fundamentally that my perceptions, memories, and my powers of reason are all more or less generally reliable (e.g., I'm currently in my kitchen, and not on top of Mount Kilimanjaro; I was born and brought up in 20th-century Britain, not 14th-century Vietnam; if X implies Y and Y implies Z, then X does in fact transitively imply Z). Obviously, these are all subject to the proviso that I may be (and often will be) mistaken in any specific instance. If I don't make such assumptions -- if I just conclude that I can never know anything about the world, not even provisionally -- then what's the point in doing anything? I may as well just sit here and rot. After all, my life (and my growing hunger and thirst pains) are all just illusions, for all I know. Finally, if you're going to insist that something as basic as the existence of change needs to be demonstrated with "epistemic certitude" for any debate, then such debate is going to be needlessly prolonged and tiresome -- and arguably in bad faith, as the very existence of a debate is predicated on the existence of change.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]