4 ms·

[flagged]

krapp 2y ago
>It's not just optimistic - its qualitatively unjustified to think that neuroscience (in its current form, at least) is inevitably capable of cracking consciousness. The fact that you had to add the parenthetical here to hedge your bet demonstrates that you don't even entirely believe your own claims.
- smokedetector1 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    God of the Gaps is not intellectual honesty. Neither is running from an argument.
    - smokedetector1 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - smallmancontrov 2y ago
        Not an axiom, just a prior with enough evidence to smash the probability of ghosts quite near to zero. You're welcome to pretend that I said "zero" and continue shadow-boxing a straw-man, but if you want to fight my actual argument you need to contend with "near to zero." The difference between Woo of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps is that science is on the advance and woo is on the retreat, it has been this way for centuries, and the pace always seems to be determined exactly by the rate at which science advances rather than any actual opposition from the Woo camp. Nothing is over until it's over, but how much do you actually want to bet on a glorious turnaround? You do you, but for me the answer is "not much."
        smokedetector1 2y ago
        [deleted]
        smallmancontrov 2y ago
        The rate of an army's advance through a particular town is 0 until they get there, but if you were to see the front lines moving towards you and put forward this argument as a reason to stay, you would be in for a rude surprise.
  - krapp 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - smokedetector1 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - krapp 2y ago
        What argument? I don't see an argument, I just see [deleted]. If you mean this... This is why I think strict materialism on consciousness is misguided. People like to think "weve cracked everything scientifically, from quantum physics to neuroscience, so even if we don't have a good explanation for consciousness now, we'll get there." Except the reality is macroscopic neuroscientific findings are incredibly coarse and with many caveats and uncertainties, statements more like "this area of the brain is associated with X" than "this area of the brain causes X." It's not just optimistic - its qualitatively unjustified to think that neuroscience (in its current form, at least) is inevitably capable of cracking consciousness. Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary. shrug ... that wasn't an argument, it was a loosely formed set of vague and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that you immediately deleted it and started insulting anyone who responded to you kind of proves my point. I'm sorry I wasted my time on you, won't happen again.
        smokedetector1 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dcow 2y ago
        I was going to help support your argument, but I can’t because you started throwing a fit and deleted everything. My 18-month has calmer manners. You can actually delete your comment (instead of editing to [deleted]) and it kills the entire thread, you know.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
  That claim has a very robust history in philosophy of mind. Peter Hacker and M.R. Bennett, a philosopher and a neuroscientist respectively, cowrote Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience[0]. There was also a fascinating response and discussion in a further book with Daniel Dennett and John Searle called Neuroscience and Philosophy[1]. Both books are excellent and have fascinating arguments and counter-arguments; you get very clear pictures of fundamentally different pictures of the human mind and the role and idea of neuroscience. [0]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neuroscience%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781119530978 https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neu... [1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/9780231140447 https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/97...
smallmancontrov 2y ago
So... because the problem of untangling how the brain works is complicated and unfinished, it might be powered by woo? Sure, and maybe Cthulu is about to awaken the sunken city of R'lyeh. You can't prove me wrong either.
circlefavshape 2y ago
> despite the evidence to the contrary Humans being unable to figure out how inanimate matter gives rise to consciousness is not evidence that "strict materialism on consciousness is misguided". Or is there some other evidence I'm unaware of?
- smokedetector1 2y ago
  [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
While I agree in general, I think you overstate things here: > Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary. Do we have actual evidence that it can't reach everything? That would be "evidence to the contrary". What you have given is evidence of its inability to reach everything so far, in its current form. That's still not nothing - the pure materialists are committed to that position because of their philosophical starting point, not because of empirical evidence, and you show that that's the case. But so far as I know, there is no current evidence that they could never reach that goal. [Edit to reply, since I'm rate limited: No, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The materialists don't get the freebee, and neither do you. In fact, I was agreeing with you about you pointing out that the materialists were claiming an undeserved freebee. But you don't get the freebee, for the same reason that they don't.]
- smokedetector1 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Science and philosophy as they currently stand have yet to settle on just one single an universally agreed upon definition of "consciousness" — last I heard it was about 40 different definitions, some of which are so poor that tape recorders would pass. The philosophical definitions also sometimes preclude any human from being able to meet the standard, e.g. by requiring the ability to solve the halting problem. Without knowing which thing you mean, we can't confidently say which arrangements of matter are or are not conscious; but we can still be at least moderately confident (for most definitions) that it's something material because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      A slightly-less-than-perfect analogy: I can mess with the execution of software by mis-adjusting the power supply far enough. It still runs, but it starts having weird errors. Based on that, would we say that software is electrical? Is software electrical? It certainly runs on electrical hardware. And yet, it seems absurdly reductionist to say that software is electrical. It's missing all the ways in which software is not like hardware. Is consciousness similar? It runs on physical (chemical) hardware. But is it itself physical or chemical? Or is that too reductionist a view? (Note that there is no claim that software is "woo" or "spirit" or anything like that. It's not just hardware, though.)
0_gravitas 2y ago
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- smokedetector1 2y ago
  [deleted]
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    No, they're not.
    - smokedetector1 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - raziel2p 2y ago
    if it's become usual, maybe it's time to reconsider your arguments or phrasing?
    - smokedetector1 2y ago
      [deleted]
      - raziel2p 2y ago
        I don't really care if I believe you or not, you deleted your comment so I can't even see what you're referring to, but getting into unproductive arguments on the internet is just gonna make you miserable.
        smokedetector1 2y ago

[flagged]

>It's not just optimistic - its qualitatively unjustified to think that neuroscience (in its current form, at least) is inevitably capable of cracking consciousness. The fact that you had to add the parenthetical here to hedge your bet demonstrates that you don't even entirely believe your own claims.

smokedetector1 2y ago
[flagged]
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  God of the Gaps is not intellectual honesty. Neither is running from an argument.
  - smokedetector1 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      Not an axiom, just a prior with enough evidence to smash the probability of ghosts quite near to zero. You're welcome to pretend that I said "zero" and continue shadow-boxing a straw-man, but if you want to fight my actual argument you need to contend with "near to zero." The difference between Woo of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps is that science is on the advance and woo is on the retreat, it has been this way for centuries, and the pace always seems to be determined exactly by the rate at which science advances rather than any actual opposition from the Woo camp. Nothing is over until it's over, but how much do you actually want to bet on a glorious turnaround? You do you, but for me the answer is "not much."
      - smokedetector1 2y ago
        [deleted]
        smallmancontrov 2y ago
        The rate of an army's advance through a particular town is 0 until they get there, but if you were to see the front lines moving towards you and put forward this argument as a reason to stay, you would be in for a rude surprise.
- krapp 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - smokedetector1 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - krapp 2y ago
      What argument? I don't see an argument, I just see [deleted]. If you mean this... This is why I think strict materialism on consciousness is misguided. People like to think "weve cracked everything scientifically, from quantum physics to neuroscience, so even if we don't have a good explanation for consciousness now, we'll get there." Except the reality is macroscopic neuroscientific findings are incredibly coarse and with many caveats and uncertainties, statements more like "this area of the brain is associated with X" than "this area of the brain causes X." It's not just optimistic - its qualitatively unjustified to think that neuroscience (in its current form, at least) is inevitably capable of cracking consciousness. Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary. shrug ... that wasn't an argument, it was a loosely formed set of vague and unsubstantiated claims. The fact that you immediately deleted it and started insulting anyone who responded to you kind of proves my point. I'm sorry I wasted my time on you, won't happen again.
      - smokedetector1 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dcow 2y ago
        I was going to help support your argument, but I can’t because you started throwing a fit and deleted everything. My 18-month has calmer manners. You can actually delete your comment (instead of editing to [deleted]) and it kills the entire thread, you know.
beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
That claim has a very robust history in philosophy of mind. Peter Hacker and M.R. Bennett, a philosopher and a neuroscientist respectively, cowrote Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience[0]. There was also a fascinating response and discussion in a further book with Daniel Dennett and John Searle called Neuroscience and Philosophy[1]. Both books are excellent and have fascinating arguments and counter-arguments; you get very clear pictures of fundamentally different pictures of the human mind and the role and idea of neuroscience. [0]: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neuroscience%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781119530978 https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Foundations+of+Neu... [1]: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/9780231140447 https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neuroscience-and-philosophy/97...

smallmancontrov 2y ago

So... because the problem of untangling how the brain works is complicated and unfinished, it might be powered by woo? Sure, and maybe Cthulu is about to awaken the sunken city of R'lyeh. You can't prove me wrong either.

circlefavshape 2y ago

> despite the evidence to the contrary Humans being unable to figure out how inanimate matter gives rise to consciousness is not evidence that "strict materialism on consciousness is misguided". Or is there some other evidence I'm unaware of?

smokedetector1 2y ago
[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

While I agree in general, I think you overstate things here: > Many STEM people hate this because they want to axiomatically believe materialist science can reach everything, despite the evidence to the contrary. Do we have actual evidence that it can't reach everything? That would be "evidence to the contrary". What you have given is evidence of its inability to reach everything so far, in its current form. That's still not nothing - the pure materialists are committed to that position because of their philosophical starting point, not because of empirical evidence, and you show that that's the case. But so far as I know, there is no current evidence that they could never reach that goal. [Edit to reply, since I'm rate limited: No, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The materialists don't get the freebee, and neither do you. In fact, I was agreeing with you about you pointing out that the materialists were claiming an undeserved freebee. But you don't get the freebee, for the same reason that they don't.]

smokedetector1 2y ago
[deleted]
- ben_w 2y ago
  Science and philosophy as they currently stand have yet to settle on just one single an universally agreed upon definition of "consciousness" — last I heard it was about 40 different definitions, some of which are so poor that tape recorders would pass. The philosophical definitions also sometimes preclude any human from being able to meet the standard, e.g. by requiring the ability to solve the halting problem. Without knowing which thing you mean, we can't confidently say which arrangements of matter are or are not conscious; but we can still be at least moderately confident (for most definitions) that it's something material because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    A slightly-less-than-perfect analogy: I can mess with the execution of software by mis-adjusting the power supply far enough. It still runs, but it starts having weird errors. Based on that, would we say that software is electrical? Is software electrical? It certainly runs on electrical hardware. And yet, it seems absurdly reductionist to say that software is electrical. It's missing all the ways in which software is not like hardware. Is consciousness similar? It runs on physical (chemical) hardware. But is it itself physical or chemical? Or is that too reductionist a view? (Note that there is no claim that software is "woo" or "spirit" or anything like that. It's not just hardware, though.)

0_gravitas 2y ago

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

smokedetector1 2y ago
[deleted]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  No, they're not.
  - smokedetector1 2y ago
    [deleted]
- raziel2p 2y ago
  if it's become usual, maybe it's time to reconsider your arguments or phrasing?
  - smokedetector1 2y ago
    [deleted]
    - raziel2p 2y ago
      I don't really care if I believe you or not, you deleted your comment so I can't even see what you're referring to, but getting into unproductive arguments on the internet is just gonna make you miserable.
      - smokedetector1 2y ago