4 ms·

It is good to see that we are more-or-less on the same page about what the issue is, but I can also see, from some of the things you say here, that I need to do

It is good to see that we are more-or-less on the same page about what the issue is, but I can also see, from some of the things you say here, that I need to do a more thorough job in explaining myself. In the following, I will give a “Bill and Bob” example showing how I think chain-of-causality answers what I will call, for brevity, the central question (what is it that makes a thought be one about reality?), and I will make more clear how this view stands in relation to similarity. I realized, reading your reply, that I had not make it clear that chain-of-causality is about information flow: how does information about reality shape our thoughts so that they conform to reality? It also gives an account of how and why this quite often does not work, leading to people thinking and believing falsehoods. I also realized that its premises can be weakened, and as a consequence, it is not explicitly a materialist hypothesis. Previously, I wrote “If we suppose that there is a causal flow from the real world to brain states via the sense organs, and adopt the premise that (changes in) mental states are caused by (changes in) brain states, then we have at least the outlines of an answer to your tacit initial question” [i.e. what I called the central question above]. That second (emphasized) premise can be weakened to “changes in mental states are caused by sensory inputs and ongoing mental processes.” This modified premise seems more congenial to anti-materialists, given the considerable empirical evidence that this is in fact what happens. Without further ado, here’s my Bill-and-Bob scenario. I have altered from your original one to make Bill’s mistake seem more plausible. Bill and Bob are hiking a mountain trail when Bill sees a stone, having glittering yellow inclusions, beside the path. "We've found gold!" he exclaims, picking it up and showing it to Bob, but Bob takes it, examines it closely, and replies "it's just iron pyrite, Bill." - and he is right. So what causal chains might lead up to this exchange? There are all sorts of possibilities, going back to the big bang, though it seems likely they will mostly be variations on a theme. We might pick up the story with humans discovering gold and naming it, something that happened independently in many different places by many different people, and the names they gave it were, for the most part, independent, related only by their being all names given by various people to this one substance (I am making an issue of naming here in order to use it in making a point later.) The causal story continues with gold being widely seen as valuable on account of various properties, such as being nearly inert and having a density and abundance in the sweet spot for being a portable currency. At some point, it is discovered that another substance found in nature looks superficially like gold, but is not, and sometimes can quickly be distinguished from gold on account of its tendency to form characteristic cubic crystals. Most of what Bob and Bill hold to be truths about gold has probably come to them via language: even though they have probably seen and held gold artifacts, it is likely that they had already been primed for those experiences by being told what gold is like, and it seems highly likely that this is how they came to know that it is valuable, as well as being how Bob came to know about iron pyrite and ways of distinguishing it from gold ore. Note that having much of this chain being in the form of language is not a problem for either this causal story or for physicalism, as communication of information via language is itself widely and uncontroversially seen to be a causal process. From this point, it is very easy to see how Bob's causal chain could lead to him making his true statement, while Bill's did not - here, it is just a matter of Bob's chain conveying more complete factual information. In other cases, it might involve things like Bill receiving false information and taking it to be credible, or Bob having a better memory or a greater bias towards skepticism than Bill. Note that the causal chain of information flow does not stop at one’s sense organs: as postulated in my premises, prior mental states and ongoing or further mental processes are also involved in how the mental state changes in response to the sensory input. For example, if Bob is more skeptical than Bill, it might be a result of painful past experiences biasing him to be wary. Similarly, if someone receives some unwelcome information, and, as a result of their reaction to it, says something false, this is not something happening outside of the chain of causality. It is also one of at least five mechanisms by which false thoughts can arise - the others I have in mind are incorrect reasoning (including, but not limited to, motivated reasoning and rationalization in the psychological sense), reasoning from incomplete information (whether known to be incomplete or not), simple misunderstanding, and deliberate attempts to deceive (aka lying.) Now let's move on to what this does and does not imply. In part 1 of your latest post you write "If we deny that both Bob's and Bill's thoughts are like the tree (which is necessary if we "do not invoke or depend on any concept of likeness or similarity"),..." The quote-within-the-quote here is taken from this passage: " If we suppose that there is a causal flow from the real world to brain states via the sense organs, and adopt the premise that (changes in) mental states are caused by (changes in) brain states, then we have at least the outlines of an answer to your tacit initial question (what is it that makes a thought being one about reality?) that does not invoke or depend on any concept of likeness or similarity." [Since I wrote this, I weakened the second premise, but that has no consequences for the issue here.] What this says is that there is a putative answer to the central question that does not make use of the premise that true thoughts are like the external reality that they are about [1]. One of the things this neither says directly nor implies is that this answer is predicated on the assumption that thoughts are not like the external reality that they are about (I hope it is obvious that it does not say this directly, and we can see that it does not imply it by noting that you can add either the premise that true thoughts are like the external reality that they are about, or the premise that they are not, and in either case you get a valid argument, the conjunction of which is equivalent to the argument without either premise.) In other words, this is a putative answer to the central question that is completely independent of the question of whether there is a similarity between the thought and reality: if there is similarity, that’s fine but inconsequential, and the same goes if no similarity can be found. I hope this makes it clear that this is not an attempt to show that there is a way for materialism to be consistent with your thesis that similarity is essential for thoughts to be about reality; On the contrary, it is an argument with implications that go against that thesis. Again, this neither implies nor requires that there cannot be any similarity. Personally, I do not suppose that one could think meaningfully about reality without there being a correspondence, at some more-or-less abstract level, between the thoughts and the real world, and for all I know from what you have said about it, that may or may not be what you mean when you say 'similarity' or 'likeness'. Even if it is, that certainly does not mean that I am rationally obliged to accept your premise that it is the one and only reason why thoughts can be about reality. Quite the opposite, in fact: I suppose that it is information flow along chains of causality that both enables this property of thought and leads to thoughts having a correspondence with reality. ------ [1] I am assuming that we can agree that this discussion is limited to considering thoughts in the form of propositions about an objective reality which we assume to exist. continued...

mannykannot 2y ago
...continued. Having (I hope) clarified these matters, let's move on to the argument as set out in your numbered sections: A thought can be right or wrong, but right-ness implies likeness to reality, while wrong-ness implies un-likeness. To illustrate: suppose Bob has a thought about a tree. Let's say it's "this oak tree is made of wood". Now suppose his friend Bill thinks "this oak tree is made of copper". I take it we can premise that Bob is right and Bill is wrong. But for our premise to be true, their thoughts must be compared to the tree itself. There is no other way to judge their thoughts' right-ness or wrong-ness." The last sentence here is the first occasion in your latest post where you make a sweeping claim without offering any justification for it to be accepted. When you construct an argument, you can use, as a premise, any statement that is in the form of a proposition, but for it to be a sound argument, you have to show that it is a fact, and in epistemology and elsewhere, the generally-accepted basis for regarding a premise as being factual is the JTB criterion: it states a justified, true belief. Your say-so does not amount to either verification of the claim as being factual or justification for thinking it is. The first problem in attempting to verify this premise is that you have not given the slightest explanation of what it means to say a thought is like reality. What would it mean to say that Bob's thought of an oak tree is like an actual oak tree? Does it grow from an acorn? Does it have the genetic signature that is shared by oak trees? These are both facts about them that might be the content of thoughts - indeed, they are right now, as you read this! It gets even more problematic when we move on to a broader range of propositions. Take the claim "the highest mountain in the world is in Asia." In what sense does this thought have the property of being in Asia? Alternatively, if it does not actually have this property, then what does it mean to say this thought has a relevant likeness to the facts of the matter? When I learned the other day that Phil Lesh had died, was there something dead about my thought? Or there is this: "beta decay produces neutrinos." Does the neutrino component of this thought respond to the weak force? Furthermore, there was a time when neutrinos were postulated but had not yet been discovered - and then, when it was, did thoughts about neutrinos suddenly gain a likeness to neutrinos themselves? What's more, Bob's thought about oak trees, as you have presented it, is a sentence, rather than an ineffable feeling that an oak tree is made of wood - i.e., it is a sequence of words conforming to a grammar. Do the words "tree" and "wood" have a likeness to the things they denote? One can easily doubt it on the grounds that words seem to be arbitrary: except for the relatively few onomatopoeia (and not strongly even then), it seems that words are not constrained to be in any way like the reality they express: for example, when physicists named the charm quark, were they obliged to pick the word 'charm' in order to ensure that propositions containing it had the necessary likeness to reality? Of course not! The problem for you here is multiplied by the fact that there are a great many different languages, with wildly varying sounds at the level of both words and grammars, yet despite all this, we obviously are not in the situation you claim would come to pass if your thesis fails: we have not lost the possibility of rightness, and all thought has not become meaningless. Perhaps you think that this likeness is not to be found in individual words, but only in propositions as a whole - but this does not do away with the need to explain how this likeness comes about. Furthermore, this position is, ipso facto, one in which the likeness is emergent, so, in constructing an explanation along these lines, you will have to overcome your struggles with the concept of emergence and embrace it. There are other claims in the first section that are moot in the light of the clarifications above, so there is no need for me to address them here. This also applies to quite a few statements in section 2, but there are a few that give pause. For example, I am curious as to what you suppose follows from your statement that "A brain state is one result of a particular causal chain, but there is nothing special about it on that account." What does being special have anything to do with whether it might be part of an answer to our central question? I can see that things like falsifiability and consistency matter, but being special...? In fact, not being special seems to me to be a virtue: the chain-of-causality story is straightforward, has clear premises, does not require the acceptance of propositions for which no justification is given, and does not stray far from uncontroversial facts about minds and communication. I believe your objection "more specifically, a causal chain cannot in itself be 'right' or 'wrong'. It is possible that a causal chain will cause Bob to think a tree is made of wood, and cause Bill to think it's made of copper. This is not enough for Bob to be right and Bill wrong, because the chain has no connection to correct-ness." has been thoroughly addressed above: in short, it is the flow of information originating in the real world that makes it possible for thoughts about the real world to be correct. You go on to say "It can't give us reason for saying "Bob's thoughts are like reality, and Bill's are not"."My first response to that is until you can say what the similarity is between Bob's thought and reality, and give us a decision procedure by which we can tell that Bob's thought is similar to reality while Bill's is not, then even if we accepted your thesis, we would still not have a reason for saying "Bob's thoughts are like reality, and Bill's are not", because we would not have enough information to make the call. I propose that the way we get a reason for deciding whether a proposition is realistic is that we make use of information flowing on the chain of causality to draw our own conclusions. I get the impression that you feel this is not good enough, but the thing is we are in no better position than are Bob and Bill: the best we can do is to make the call on the basis of what we already believe to be true, or what we come to believe is true as a result of investigations into what information we have, whether it can reasonably be regarded as factual, what other information might be available and what effect it could have on our decision (for example, we might initially side with Bill, but change our minds after Bob explains to us why he thinks the rock is just pyrite. This is another example of a causal chain bringing about true thoughts, and it is, roughly speaking, the sort of process that Bayesian reasoning seeks to formalize.) The truth of any proposition about reality is not determined by whether or how we can determine that it is correct; it is either true or false from the get-go. The Collatz conjecture, for example, is either true or false now, and has been at least since it was first conceived of (mathematical Platonists presumably think it has always been either true or false) - the problem is just that we do not know which it is. There is no oracle that reliably sorts all propositions into true or false buckets; Gödel, Turing et.al. hammered the nails into that coffin, and it is obvious that we don't need an oracle in order to avoid the dire situation you claim would follow from your thesis being false (plus, if this oracle was an essential tool in making sense of the world, it would already have been used to find out if the Collatz and other conjectures are true or false.) It is not, therefore, a problem for chain-of-causality that it cannot do so, and if you think it is, it would be inconsistent for you to assert that it is not also a problem for your thesis. continued...

mannykannot 2y ago

...continued. Having (I hope) clarified these matters, let's move on to the argument as set out in your numbered sections: A thought can be right or wrong, but right-ness implies likeness to reality, while wrong-ness implies un-likeness. To illustrate: suppose Bob has a thought about a tree. Let's say it's "this oak tree is made of wood". Now suppose his friend Bill thinks "this oak tree is made of copper". I take it we can premise that Bob is right and Bill is wrong. But for our premise to be true, their thoughts must be compared to the tree itself. There is no other way to judge their thoughts' right-ness or wrong-ness." The last sentence here is the first occasion in your latest post where you make a sweeping claim without offering any justification for it to be accepted. When you construct an argument, you can use, as a premise, any statement that is in the form of a proposition, but for it to be a sound argument, you have to show that it is a fact, and in epistemology and elsewhere, the generally-accepted basis for regarding a premise as being factual is the JTB criterion: it states a justified, true belief. Your say-so does not amount to either verification of the claim as being factual or justification for thinking it is. The first problem in attempting to verify this premise is that you have not given the slightest explanation of what it means to say a thought is like reality. What would it mean to say that Bob's thought of an oak tree is like an actual oak tree? Does it grow from an acorn? Does it have the genetic signature that is shared by oak trees? These are both facts about them that might be the content of thoughts - indeed, they are right now, as you read this! It gets even more problematic when we move on to a broader range of propositions. Take the claim "the highest mountain in the world is in Asia." In what sense does this thought have the property of being in Asia? Alternatively, if it does not actually have this property, then what does it mean to say this thought has a relevant likeness to the facts of the matter? When I learned the other day that Phil Lesh had died, was there something dead about my thought? Or there is this: "beta decay produces neutrinos." Does the neutrino component of this thought respond to the weak force? Furthermore, there was a time when neutrinos were postulated but had not yet been discovered - and then, when it was, did thoughts about neutrinos suddenly gain a likeness to neutrinos themselves? What's more, Bob's thought about oak trees, as you have presented it, is a sentence, rather than an ineffable feeling that an oak tree is made of wood - i.e., it is a sequence of words conforming to a grammar. Do the words "tree" and "wood" have a likeness to the things they denote? One can easily doubt it on the grounds that words seem to be arbitrary: except for the relatively few onomatopoeia (and not strongly even then), it seems that words are not constrained to be in any way like the reality they express: for example, when physicists named the charm quark, were they obliged to pick the word 'charm' in order to ensure that propositions containing it had the necessary likeness to reality? Of course not! The problem for you here is multiplied by the fact that there are a great many different languages, with wildly varying sounds at the level of both words and grammars, yet despite all this, we obviously are not in the situation you claim would come to pass if your thesis fails: we have not lost the possibility of rightness, and all thought has not become meaningless. Perhaps you think that this likeness is not to be found in individual words, but only in propositions as a whole - but this does not do away with the need to explain how this likeness comes about. Furthermore, this position is, ipso facto, one in which the likeness is emergent, so, in constructing an explanation along these lines, you will have to overcome your struggles with the concept of emergence and embrace it. There are other claims in the first section that are moot in the light of the clarifications above, so there is no need for me to address them here. This also applies to quite a few statements in section 2, but there are a few that give pause. For example, I am curious as to what you suppose follows from your statement that "A brain state is one result of a particular causal chain, but there is nothing special about it on that account." What does being special have anything to do with whether it might be part of an answer to our central question? I can see that things like falsifiability and consistency matter, but being special...? In fact, not being special seems to me to be a virtue: the chain-of-causality story is straightforward, has clear premises, does not require the acceptance of propositions for which no justification is given, and does not stray far from uncontroversial facts about minds and communication. I believe your objection "more specifically, a causal chain cannot in itself be 'right' or 'wrong'. It is possible that a causal chain will cause Bob to think a tree is made of wood, and cause Bill to think it's made of copper. This is not enough for Bob to be right and Bill wrong, because the chain has no connection to correct-ness." has been thoroughly addressed above: in short, it is the flow of information originating in the real world that makes it possible for thoughts about the real world to be correct. You go on to say "It can't give us reason for saying "Bob's thoughts are like reality, and Bill's are not"."My first response to that is until you can say what the similarity is between Bob's thought and reality, and give us a decision procedure by which we can tell that Bob's thought is similar to reality while Bill's is not, then even if we accepted your thesis, we would still not have a reason for saying "Bob's thoughts are like reality, and Bill's are not", because we would not have enough information to make the call. I propose that the way we get a reason for deciding whether a proposition is realistic is that we make use of information flowing on the chain of causality to draw our own conclusions. I get the impression that you feel this is not good enough, but the thing is we are in no better position than are Bob and Bill: the best we can do is to make the call on the basis of what we already believe to be true, or what we come to believe is true as a result of investigations into what information we have, whether it can reasonably be regarded as factual, what other information might be available and what effect it could have on our decision (for example, we might initially side with Bill, but change our minds after Bob explains to us why he thinks the rock is just pyrite. This is another example of a causal chain bringing about true thoughts, and it is, roughly speaking, the sort of process that Bayesian reasoning seeks to formalize.) The truth of any proposition about reality is not determined by whether or how we can determine that it is correct; it is either true or false from the get-go. The Collatz conjecture, for example, is either true or false now, and has been at least since it was first conceived of (mathematical Platonists presumably think it has always been either true or false) - the problem is just that we do not know which it is. There is no oracle that reliably sorts all propositions into true or false buckets; Gödel, Turing et.al. hammered the nails into that coffin, and it is obvious that we don't need an oracle in order to avoid the dire situation you claim would follow from your thesis being false (plus, if this oracle was an essential tool in making sense of the world, it would already have been used to find out if the Collatz and other conjectures are true or false.) It is not, therefore, a problem for chain-of-causality that it cannot do so, and if you think it is, it would be inconsistent for you to assert that it is not also a problem for your thesis. continued...