4 ms·
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that intelligence requires quantum effects to work. I don't see how going back to vitalist arguments will aid us in any way
by habitue 11y ago
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that intelligence requires quantum effects to work. I don't see how going back to vitalist arguments will aid us in any way. Researching the phenomena, following evidence, making inferences from that evidence... that's how progress on that subject would be made. Not by going back to arguments made by people with less information than we have now.
Specifically, if we follow the evidence, and find that somehow, beyond all odds, the vitalists were correct (once you add "quantumness!" to the mix), then it's clearly only by lucky guess they were right. It would be something we could look back at and say "wow, that's an interesting coincidence" rather than "wow, those vitalists had it right all along, we should have paid closer attention".
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoIts often by intuition that we know where to look. Lets not be arrogant and claim "ok, you guessed it right, but its only true if I measure it and prove its true". That's correct but disingenuous.
- habitue 11y agoThat's what I meant by rational inference, but if we look at it from the point of view of intuition, I'm saying our intuitions will be better because we have much better information now. We have no particular reason to weight heavily the intuitions of the vitalists in our search.
- dragonwriter 11y agoIntuition can be correct, and it can be wildly wrong. Science is how we separate the correct, the mildly wrong, and the wildly wrong intuitions. Its not an alternative to intuition -- intuition is where hypotheses come from. (OTOH, vitalism isn't a hypothesis, simply an intuition that some aspects of living things are outside the domain of science. Its not testable -- if correct, its completely indistinguishable from some of the relevant aspects of living things simply not being sufficiently well modeled by the current state of science at any given time. So, its an intuition that is neither confirmable nor useful in any way.)
- gnaritas 11y agoThat's still simply luck; unfounded intuition is meaningless as it's wrong more often than not. That's it's occasionally correct is coincidence.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI guess all scientific progress has been by coincidence then? That's what I mean by disingenuous; some credit has to be given to those that are right. There are an infinite number of wrong intuitions.
- gnaritas 11y agoNo, scientific progress comes from empirically chasing down and disproving false intuitions so that only the few true ones remain. Intuition creates hypothesis, empiricism makes them useful since nearly all intuitions are wrong. It's the empiricists that deserve the credit, they are why science works and of course are generally the ones with the intuitions that are correct as well. And you can't say vitalists were right, they've made no predictions: calling something magic woo woo isn't a hypothesis that can be proven right.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoWhich begs the question: where did the correct intuitions come from? Can't be random; there are billions of wrong ideas and only 1 right one. So some weight has to be given to intuitions, and some props to those who had the right ones. Because that's how progress gets made.
- gnaritas 11y ago> Which begs the question: where did the correct intuitions come from? Logic. > Can't be random; there are billions of wrong ideas and only 1 right one. It's not random, it's deductions based on previously known truths. > So some weight has to be given to intuitions, and some props to those who had the right ones. Because that's how progress gets made. Props are given to those people, they're called scientists. There are no correct intuitions from the vitalists, they're claim is magic... that's not in any way useful.