Submitted by Gmroo t3_zdfsu4 in philosophy
Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't. Consciouness is simply an observance system to process input.
It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.
As an examples, you can have a sub system in a computer that monitors the computer. Our monitoring system just has actionable capabilities. No metaphysics required.
Can we start applying occam's razor here please? We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.
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?
Nothing you said takes any real issue with my central point. We take your "observance system to process input" and we ask ourselves are there other cool phenomena in the universe that would require a specific process like an observsnce system to process input? Since by simply observing the universe it doesn't seem like we can infer this input feels like anything.
It has little to do with Ockham's razor also. And it also has nothing to do with the mysterianism position in philosophy of mind that you seem to imply it does.
We have an observance system because it has demonstrated an evolutionary advantage.
Applying such a concept out of context requires justification to do so. We do not see the universe alive in the same context as we are. What is the justification to apply such a concept to vast empty space, gasses, solids, liquids, and metals out in space?
I don't follow what you're getting at or asking. Yes, consciousness evolved. What do you mean by applying it out of context? The point is simply that significant phenomena may exist like that which in principle we couldn't detect any less than we can infer what taste, eyesight or hearing is like without experiencing them. These significant phenomena may just as well evolve or be constructed, they needn't be states of matter...
That assertion is false. Why can't we infer taste, eyesight or hearing without experiencing then?
We know eagles have better sight than us without needing their eyes.
We know bats hear better than us, and use it for sight without that capability ourselves.
We know migrating birds have mechanisms for navigating that we do not posses. Even though we have not pinned down exactly what, we know it exists and we don't need metaphysics for it.
The more we know about how each thing works the less we need to be able to experience it ourselves to understand it
> It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.
This is metaphysics.
Incorrect.
Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality
Or
Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception
Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.
> Incorrect.
Also metaphysics.
> > > > Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality
> > > > Or > > > > Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception > > >
Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?
> Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.
Can we ascertain the entirety of it, with zero chance of error?
What if two people make conflicting claims about a portion of reality?
If claimed on reality, then metaphysics need not apply.
Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.
> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com
Can you please link to both (I want to check if those are the sole definitions for each)?
Which reminds me - you didn't answer this (or my other questions):
>> Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?
> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.
Well, this also happens to exist:
I am sorry, had major surgery this morning and am recovering. Not on top of my game. Your link does support that this is poorly defined still.
I donl apologize, I won't be able to continue thus dialog, but it will reference your point.
Thank you, and get well soon!
But those sub-systems operate on the same logic as the rest of the computer. It's all computer code. Taking 'conciousness' to essentially mean 'qualia' as in the Chalmers tradition, consciousness is fundamentally ontologically different from the brain itself, despite their correlation.
To keep with the computer analogy, the brain is like the CPU and consciousness is like the light coming from the monitor. Totally separate things. The light has nothing to do with how the CPU operates, and the CPU is actually responsible for the light in first place via instructions given to the monitor. But you can, in a way, make the CPU acknowledge the light that it's creating by hooking up a webcam and pointing it at the monitor. Sort of a computer self-awareness, the same way I'm aware of my own qualia/conscious experience.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments