Submitted by Gmroo t3_zdfsu4 in philosophy
Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo
Because you can't prove what you just asserted is true.
and? no one can prove any of their theories, at least emergent behavior makes rational sense (the rest basically require magic, souls or other non-materiel assumptions).
'you' are literally the sum of your genes, neurons, memories, experiences, society (as such you also make all your own choices, the entire free will debate hinges on human consciousness being 'special' when it isnt)
That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination. Metaphysical claims have no current mechanism for such a test.
> My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination.
Using Occam's Razor?
Through direct examination.
Can you provide ~proofs for these two assertions of fact (not opinion)?
Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't.
We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.
Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point.
However, we know humans are rooted in reality. That is testable in many ways. As our knowledge and capabilities have expanded we have been able to remove an increasing amout of things from the realm of philosophy. Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical
On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it. Therefore, investing in examining the brains capabilities and examining for a process.
That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.
> Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point. > > > > However, we know humans are rooted in reality.
What about this reality right here: "That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination."?
Are you "rooted in" that one (which disagrees with this one the one in the comment I'm replying to) also? Is it simultaneously, or do they/you switch back and forth?
> That is testable in many ways.
You can test that there is some shared reality. Beyond that, you're speculating.
> Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical
Great marketing, bad argument.
> On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it.
How do you see the future with physics? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but have there even been any experiments on this?
> That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.
I will not invest in anything backed by this style of thinking - worse, I will oppose it.
You will not invest in approaches based on reality? Sounds like we done here.
It's not really the future of physics that is important here. It's the ability for us to inspect claims that were previously impossible to investigate. We have the ability, and increasingly so, to inspect how the brain functions. This path is likely to give us better answers then the last three millenia of speculation with deferrement to untestable metaphysical concepts - such as the soul.
> You will not invest in approaches based on reality?
One problem is with your demonstration here today of "what we know". Another is "backed by this style of thinking" - that you equate your thinking with reality itself is a big problem for me.
Also, dodging of questions is a black mark in my books.
We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly, we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.
We require no metaphysical concept to understand that. My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.
My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.
> We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly
On a percentage basis, how close are we to having perfect understanding of the entire system (including when brains are networked)?
> ...we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.
We don't actually, but there is certainly no shortage of belief who have faith that that is true.
> We require no metaphysical concept to understand that.
To understand what is really going on here, I believe it inevitably gets deep into metaphysics, depending on one's definition - for me, I use this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
> My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.
Oh, I didn't realize your statements were an argument.
If it isn't too much trouble, would you be willing to continue this conversation in a form of only objectively true statements? (And if not: why not?)
> My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.
Your thinking may be correct, but it may also be incorrect.
Consider: what are the odds that your cognition and the "knowledge" that it rests on has zero substantial flaws?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments