4 ms·

You nailed it which is that almost everyone I’ve met seems to believe in some version of dualism If that’s even subtly your position then there’s no way to hav

You nailed it which is that almost everyone I’ve met seems to believe in some version of dualism If that’s even subtly your position then there’s no way to have a productive conversation about perception, reality/truth, epistemology and especially consciousness It’s honestly maddening cause I’ve had great conversations about this with educated people, and all but only a handful, collapse into the other person relying on some nonfalsifiable dualist argument

km144 5mo ago
I'm basically restating what you said, but it's amazing to me that the vast majority of people you will meet, even educated people, are casual dualists and free-will libertarians. If they happen to acknowledge materialism in some way (i.e. the acceptance of the idea that the brain's processes are just the interaction of physical matter), there is still zero chance they draw determinist conclusions from that acknowledgement. But I guess that tracks, given that most professional philosophers are apparently compatibilists for some reason I have never understood (the arguments get really confusing).
- AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
  I’ve studied this in extreme depth and my conclusion is that at a certain point most people just give up and take a position that gives them some kind of mental relief For people who can’t self-delude, like Godel and Schopenhauer and Tesla, they kind of just go “mad” because it’s a giant epistemological hole they can’t solve. Even the smartest the scientist are always going to choose self preservation in their cognitive capacity so they don’t feel bad over feeling bad and living in the contradiction This is why it’s important for scientists to study Camus IMO
indoordin0saur 5mo ago
> collapse into the other person relying on some non-falsifiable dualist argument Are there any non-duelist, scientific theories out there that could plausibly be tested? I can't say I've seen any but if you know of any then I'm curious to hear about them. From what I've seen, anyone trying to explain phenomenal consciousness in scientific objective terms falls into at least one of these three strategies: 1.) Saying that consciousness "arises" inevitably or is an emergent phenomenon of a complex information processing system. There are a number of theories along these lines but they aren't falsifiable from what I've seen and usually at some point rely on some magic unexplainable step or are actually dualist. 2.) Defining consciousness just as the easily explainable stuff via biology, such as being awake vs. asleep. 3.) Dismissing the idea that subjective experience exists at all. I sometimes wonder if people arguing strongly for this are something like a philosophical zombie and there's nothing inside them experiencing.
- AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
  I’m both confused and intrigued at this question Every scientific theory that is predictably/measurably correct is not dualist by nature. Dualism assumes that there’s a non-measurable variable (usually undefined) but nevertheless has a causal input in action determination Dualism is precisely non-scientific if you are using the classic Baconian-Khaneman you epistemological process because it introduces variables that cannot be measured
  - indoordin0saur 5mo ago
    Well do you know of any non-duelist and theoretically testable theories on consciousness? I'm just pointing out when the non-duelists are completely stumped no one should be surprised if alternative ways of thinking get thrown out there.
    - FloorEgg 5mo ago
      I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but Karl friston free energy principle seems to me the most scientific theory of consciousness. (At least that I've come across)
    - AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
      There’s not consensus on what consciousness is defined as. There are a lot of people out there who have their own versions of definitions but again there’s no consensus, I personally do not throw my hat in with any written definition other than my own and I’m hesitant to share that. Saying that “dualists have an answer” doesn’t actually solve it if there’s no shared definition Much like the term “intelligence” has no consensus, so being able to determine what is “artificial” versus “not artificial” intelligence continues to be this philosophical or almost religious position. Creating a consensus on what the term “consciousness” means mechanically, would effectively destabilize the entirety of society. Imagine if the consensus definition of consciousness is applicable to all mammals. That means that there would be valid justification then to make it illegal to harm any mammal. You can see why this would incentivize people to not come to consensus on these things. So in my perspective it is not socially feasible to find consensus and therefore a way to test it because religious leader might have incompatible definitions of consciousness than let’s say an epilepsy doctor. As much as a scientists want to actually make progress in the world ultimately what holds us back are somewhat arbitrary social conventions because reasons.

km144 5mo ago

I'm basically restating what you said, but it's amazing to me that the vast majority of people you will meet, even educated people, are casual dualists and free-will libertarians. If they happen to acknowledge materialism in some way (i.e. the acceptance of the idea that the brain's processes are just the interaction of physical matter), there is still zero chance they draw determinist conclusions from that acknowledgement. But I guess that tracks, given that most professional philosophers are apparently compatibilists for some reason I have never understood (the arguments get really confusing).

AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
I’ve studied this in extreme depth and my conclusion is that at a certain point most people just give up and take a position that gives them some kind of mental relief For people who can’t self-delude, like Godel and Schopenhauer and Tesla, they kind of just go “mad” because it’s a giant epistemological hole they can’t solve. Even the smartest the scientist are always going to choose self preservation in their cognitive capacity so they don’t feel bad over feeling bad and living in the contradiction This is why it’s important for scientists to study Camus IMO

indoordin0saur 5mo ago

> collapse into the other person relying on some non-falsifiable dualist argument Are there any non-duelist, scientific theories out there that could plausibly be tested? I can't say I've seen any but if you know of any then I'm curious to hear about them. From what I've seen, anyone trying to explain phenomenal consciousness in scientific objective terms falls into at least one of these three strategies: 1.) Saying that consciousness "arises" inevitably or is an emergent phenomenon of a complex information processing system. There are a number of theories along these lines but they aren't falsifiable from what I've seen and usually at some point rely on some magic unexplainable step or are actually dualist. 2.) Defining consciousness just as the easily explainable stuff via biology, such as being awake vs. asleep. 3.) Dismissing the idea that subjective experience exists at all. I sometimes wonder if people arguing strongly for this are something like a philosophical zombie and there's nothing inside them experiencing.

AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
I’m both confused and intrigued at this question Every scientific theory that is predictably/measurably correct is not dualist by nature. Dualism assumes that there’s a non-measurable variable (usually undefined) but nevertheless has a causal input in action determination Dualism is precisely non-scientific if you are using the classic Baconian-Khaneman you epistemological process because it introduces variables that cannot be measured
- indoordin0saur 5mo ago
  Well do you know of any non-duelist and theoretically testable theories on consciousness? I'm just pointing out when the non-duelists are completely stumped no one should be surprised if alternative ways of thinking get thrown out there.
  - FloorEgg 5mo ago
    I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but Karl friston free energy principle seems to me the most scientific theory of consciousness. (At least that I've come across)
  - AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
    There’s not consensus on what consciousness is defined as. There are a lot of people out there who have their own versions of definitions but again there’s no consensus, I personally do not throw my hat in with any written definition other than my own and I’m hesitant to share that. Saying that “dualists have an answer” doesn’t actually solve it if there’s no shared definition Much like the term “intelligence” has no consensus, so being able to determine what is “artificial” versus “not artificial” intelligence continues to be this philosophical or almost religious position. Creating a consensus on what the term “consciousness” means mechanically, would effectively destabilize the entirety of society. Imagine if the consensus definition of consciousness is applicable to all mammals. That means that there would be valid justification then to make it illegal to harm any mammal. You can see why this would incentivize people to not come to consensus on these things. So in my perspective it is not socially feasible to find consensus and therefore a way to test it because religious leader might have incompatible definitions of consciousness than let’s say an epilepsy doctor. As much as a scientists want to actually make progress in the world ultimately what holds us back are somewhat arbitrary social conventions because reasons.