Is materialism unscientific?
My contention is that some kind fo dualism is more scientific than materialism. Consciousness appears to be something we can only observe from the inside. It is private. It has to be private to avoid an infinite regress of observers observing observers. Observers can observe the same objective public things as other observers but not the private observations of other subjects. Now if consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes then it cannot ever have any independent effect back to the physical world and therefore it cannot be detected or measured in any way. Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle that can never be detected. Such a view would be dismissed as meaningless and unscientific. But the view that physical processes generate consciousness but consciousness has no independent effect back on physical processes is the same. No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. An invisible object which has no causal efficacy disappears into pure speculation. On the other hand if I clap my hands and create a particle called a poltergeist that I claim has some effect on the world then that claim can be tested, falsified and verified. At least it a scientific claim. We are discussing consciousness so it must have some ability to speak for itself.
Comments (44)
I'm confused. Wouldn't that dualism be denied by any science that you can name?
In which case consciousness would be left either a monist instrumental observational object of physiology, or an indirect suppositional construct of psychology, a perhaps an ungrounded model of philosophy, or just a plain real subjective personal insight, subject to sensation and perception, devoid of label?
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
This is an interesting thing to say.
We know that the mind is indirectly affected by physical events as sensations and can indirectly cause movement and actions. But I don't know how that works for consciousness. If you say that consciousness is the reflective inner working of the mind, then I'd have to agree.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
I love thought experiments to simplify and clarify ideas and I also use them as often as I can. Are you here still talking about consciousness itself or about a broader interactive transcendent mind?
Incidentally,Quoting lorenzo sleakes
Clapping is a physical act of slapping two material objects together in such a way that physical waves are produced in the air. Some instruments, like microphones, will detect the air waves. When a person or animal is present this is heard as a sudden loud sound.
But clapping can also be produced by just one object or physical event, such as lightning, or a plane breaking the sound barrier, or a whip, or a wet towel.
Never mind my musings. Obviously, when a tree falls in the forest it produces shock waves in the air and the ground, but sound must be heard.
No. It's the opposite.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
A bit like eyesight, or taste, or all feeling. In fact all products of the brain seem to be individual just like you described consciousness.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
No, because the brain is actually doing everything physical that you described. It is simply contained, and you cannot see it. fMRI's can be used to see what is going on in the brain visually, such is a refutation of this assertion.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
Which makes it a negative proof. Meaning, it's not a thing. Especially as all the cog-sci evidence suggests that consciousness is a function of the brain. And I do mean, all evidence currently extant.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
No, it really can't. How do I test for poltergeist. I'll have only negative proof.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
It wrote this thread, and this response to this thread.
Not a function. A property that can't be explained.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
These are actually hypothesized in science. Bad ghost particles and good ones. Depending on their impact on symmetry. Bad ghosts fields introduce negative kinetic non-virtual particle fields (seriously!). There could even be bad condensates...
Let us assume that consciousness is not private. It is very much possible for one person A to observe the consciousness of person B without having their own consciousness observed. Being observable is not equal to being observed.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
If consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes, then it becomes meaningless to say that it cannot have an independent effect back to the physical world, because the chain of cause and effect has never stepped out of the physical world.
There are other ways to detect or measure an object than observing its effects. If an object is an effect of another object or process, then it can be detected indirectly by detecting its cause. And if you have a complete description of how changes in the cause impact the object that is being studied, then you can easily make descriptions of the object without ever observing it.
There is always a problem with discussions of consciousness. People don't define exactly what they mean. Two choices, 1) self-awareness or 2) experience, i.e. what things feel like. There are other possibilities. From what you've written, I think you mean #2. Is that correct.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
I don't think this is true. I am observing your consciousness right now by reading what you have written. I'll let you observe mine - I am sitting in my living room. I see a brown reclining chair with leather cushions made in a pseudo-mission style. It's old, so the leather is cracked and discolored.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
I don't understand the logic of this.
Quoting lorenzo sleakes
As I've indicated, I don't think this is true.
On this forum, you probably won't get much traction with that assertion. Since the Enlightenment era, modern Science has been identified with ideological Materialism and philosophical Monism. So. "more scientific" could be interpreted as "more materialistic". In which case, your contention would be easily dismissed as misconstrued. For example, a materialist would demolish your claim with "show me the [s]money[/s] empirical evidence!" As you admitted, "No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested".
However, if you would re-word your postulation to say "dualism is more Reasonable", it would qualify as a debatable philosophical hypothesis instead of an empirical scientific Theory. In philosophy, there are few settled facts or closed questions. So, you could proceed to support your contention with logical argument. Unfortunately, doctrinaire Materialists do not accept Reason as evidence of anything. Reason is itself epi-phenomenal, and non-empirical. The material phenomenon is the Brain, and its epi-phenomenon is viewed as merely a byproduct of neural processes. Hence, Brain is defined as the fundamental element of which Mind is a mere illusion, generated by brain matter.
Consequently, any response to your re-worded proposal for discussion, should be limited to Philosophical Evidence. In that case, it would be an open-ended dialogue of personal opinions, not of objective facts. Your thesis couldn't be proven or dis-proven, merely subjectively accepted as more or less reasonable. If it came to a vote though, few practicing scientists would agree, but the majority of non-scientists would find your mind/body dualism to be intuitively satisfactory
That said, in my personal opinion, everything in the world is dualistic, in the sense of Universal Symmetry. That is a fundamental assumption of Physics : implying that opposites, such as Matter & Antimatter, are merely different forms of the same thing. So, you could make a case that Matter (epi-phenomenon) & Mind (phenomenon) are merely dualistic forms of some underlying essence. However, binary Symmetry also implies that the whole world system is ultimately Monistic.
Some scientists & philosophers have postulated that Energy is the essence of everything. But, more recently, intangible Information has been proposed as the fundamental element of both Matter & Energy, and even of Mind. All being symmetrical forms or phases of a singular Quintessence. If so, your contention for Mind/Body dualism, could be construed as an Information Monism, in which Energy, Matter, & Mind are all epi-phenomena of the unitary power to Enform. But, don't expect many pragmatic scientists or ideological materialists to agree with you. :nerd:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Epiphenomenon :
a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epiphenomenon
Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/
Symmetry :
Symmetries lie at the heart of the laws of nature. . . . Symmetry represents those stubborn cores that remain unaltered even under transformations that could change them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/490472a
Note -- broken symmetry results in duality
Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn't matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21
Quintessence :
The fifth element refers to what was known as the aether, a special unknown substance that permeated the celestial sphere and was purer than any of the four terrestrial elements. The notion of a fifth element was broached by Plato and later written about by Aristotle, but neither philosopher used the term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/quintessence-origin-meaning-history-elements
No, not from what seems to be the case. It (IS) the function. You see? It's something that your executive function is simply noticing.
It can't reside in it, if you cut the brain open, all you find is the contents of the brain. Consciousness is a production of the brain, just as sight is. It isn't as if sight is being viewed in the manner that you're talking about with consciousness, yet it is the exact same thing. It's isn't like sight is that which resides in the eye balls, it is a perceptive data integration. So is consciousness.
This goes for idealism, dualism, et. cetera. None of these are the kind of theses that can truly interact with empirical investigation.
So yes, it is unscientific, as a lot of philosophy is (which isn't exactly a bad thing, either.)
It's about the content of matter. Not in between or around it. There you won't find it. It litterally resides inside it. The proof is feeling pain your whole life. Pain defines life. Life is an experience of intense pain, with small interdoli of relieve, mania, intense euphoria or eudaemonia.
You will find that many disagreements here on the forum center around the misunderstanding you describe. When you're talking ontology and epistemology, many becomes most. The fact that metaphysical positions have no truth value is something I've argued many times here without convincing anyone.
Welcome to the forum.
A very astute point, my friend.
Reductionism, your favored approach to knowledge, is also a metaphysical position, but you attempt to justify it empirically all the time.
No, you'll notice I attempt to empirically describes things that are true, while you do nothing. Metaphysical claims are not falsifiable by science, but that does not mean that metaphysical claims that contradict science directly, as is often how you and your pals operate, are going to be permitted intellectually.
Your post didn't respond to what I wrote. My assertions are 1) Reductionism is a metaphysical position 2) You are a reductionist 3) Metaphysical positions are not verifiable by empirical means 4) You attempt to verify reductionism by empirical means in many of your arguments.
Quoting Kuro
:100: :up:
Okay.
Quoting T Clark
No I'm not.
Quoting T Clark
Yep.
Quoting T Clark
No. I attempt to provide empirical evidence for phenomena that exists.
Now, let's discuss.
Materialism is the position that all that exists is either matter or energy, the two being equivalent E = mc[sup]2[/sup].
Dualism espouses a tertium quid (a third) that's neither matter nor energy, the mind being the object of interest.
Is dualism falsfiable? I dunno but dualism is incompatible with materialism as it (dualism) would break the 1[sup]st[/sup] law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy): There would be energy in the system (the brain/the body) that can't be accounted for physically/materialistically.
In short, dualism can't be scientific.
That said, the OP's intuition (probably) stems from the fact that science is easily conflated with rationality (we must be willing to abandon our beliefs, even those dearest to us, if evidence contradicts such beliefs).
:chin:
Not sure I follow, my love. You know I would follow you everywhere normally but here it's very hard for me. Please understand. Why would dualism break energy conservation?
You are making consciousness an object in order to separate it from matter.
There are exceptions, but not too many.
Nice and succinct.
Good question. To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. If dualism were true, this would be false (there would be energy that can't be explained materialistically) and we could/should then hypothesize another source (immaterial) for the extra energy. That's how I understoosd it, could be wrong.
Your conflating science with philosophical theory. Aristotle's hylomorphs are an example of dualism -- matter and form. The theory accounted for the form to be already in the universe, and not an extra entity. Your total energy objection doesn't apply here and does not invalidate, per se, the theory of dualism.
If you reject dualism, don't use total energy or something like that, but use (1) intelligibility -- is it necessary that we account for another substance like form and how is it to be understood as a compound of existence. Or (2) there is no dualism -- one composition, i.e. materialism could account for the mental processes.
Well I'd think science has a big role in the proof/disproof of dualism, it being the apogee of materialism, no? :chin:
Thanks for the tip though: intelligibility :up: One question: why use comprehensibility as a yardstick? It doesn't make sense to me. It's as if I were to say calculus is incomprehensible to me (it is) and so, calculus is nonsense! :chin:
Not in the sense that one is creating a philosophical theory that can't be satisfied with science alone. Remember that a philosophical theory is trying to show reality in a difference sense, not the common sensical, scientific sense.
Quoting Agent Smith
Because if you look at any explanation of dualism -- cartesian, aristotelian, platonian, etc. they have to argue for the intelligibility of the substance they just now introduced. How did they (the philosophers themselves) know that there is such as thing as substantial form? Is it accessible by thinkers other than philosophers? Is it accessible by the scientific community? Is it accessible by the common sense? If it is accessible, then it is intelligible. And vice versa.
What about the necessity for coherence? Any philosophical theory must necessarily jibe with/square with other existing theories, including scientific ones like the 1[sup]st[/sup] law of thermodynamics, ja? If not, anyone could think up any theory, no matter how discordant it is with the current framework of knowledge.
Quoting L'éléphant
Could you explain a bit more about intelligibility? Thanks in advance.
With that in mind, parts of any ontology can be scientific. For example, the rise of information based ontologies comes from insights in quantum mechanics and the physics of how information is stored, particularly in black holes. If parts of the holographic principal are undermined by later discoveries in physics, it would have implications for these ontologies. I'm not even sure what to call information ontologies. They have more in common with physicalism than anything else, but seem distinct enough from them to warrant their own lable.
I feel like the creation of fully sentient behaving AI, and fully immersive virtual reality (probably involving some sort of direct stimulation of the brain) would be a boost to the credibility of physicalism in many ways, but, because some of the issues involved don't lend themselves to scientific analysis, there will still always be gaps reasonable people can disagree on when favoring one ontology over the other.
Yes, of course, coherence is implied in a philosophical system a philosopher builds. Why don't you read Aristotle's substance and form so you could pick up the coherence there too? The parts of the explanation (the theoretical explanation) must logically connect to make a up a whole system of philosophical view -- that's coherence.
Quoting Agent Smith
I just explained to you in my previous post. If a substance is accessible to you, it means you can understand it objectively -- epistemically it makes sense. In Descarte's cogito, he explained the self as intelligible, and through deliberation, one could understand the mind.
A question: How would we be able to disprove dualism?
Disprove? Is there proof for dualism? You don't disprove something that never itself presented proof for its existence. I don't think any of the dual philosophers had presented proof. You either reject it or accept it.
Hitchens' razor!
So, you mean to say no one, no philosopher, has even attempted to prove dualism? I didn't know that was allowed in philosophy. What about René Descartes? What about David Chalmers (p-zombies, the hard problem of consciousness), Thomas Nagel (what is it like to be a bat?), etc.? What are all these guys on about?
Still, how would we disprove dualism? Proof and disproof are independent of each other or so I'm told i.e. it maybe harder to prove than disprove (all swans are white vs. Aussie black swans).
The word "disprove" is incorrect to use here. Like I said, no one in dualism community had presented a proof. If you don't know the techniques on how they present their philosophical system, then say so and, perhaps, I can explain further. The rest of your post above is a repetition of "disprove".
Maybe what you've been meaning to say is "refute" or "challenge" the dualist view.
Why? Dualism is a statement, oui? It is either true/false, ja? Disproving dualism is to show that it's false. :chin:
The only thing for a dualist to conclude is that qualia (thoughts, sensory impressions, emotions) don't have mass. Does electric charge have mass?
This presupposes that what cannot be empirically verified is non-scientific. Still theòlogy, the science of the gods, is taught at our universities. Which could mean they are to vet empirically, like virtual particles are.
Yes, I think that's correct, with a rather large caveat. Plenty of scientific theories are impossible to vet empircally currently. For example, multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics predict identical results. However, ways of testing between some of these have been proposed and more will likely follow in the future. Same sort of thing goes for M theory.
Proposals in science don't have to be falsifiable (e.g., Many Worlds). They do need some sort of connection to the findings of science in those cases though.
Many Worlds is a result of taking the Schrodinger Equation to its logical conclusions. Taking the equation seriously is supported by empirical results that demonstrate its accuracy in describing the world (except for that pesky collapse problem).
Meanwhile, many of the problems of ontology are necissarily not open to empirical inquiry, and it's hard to see how science can move the needle on them much. It's a very blurry difference, I will agree, but you need some sort of distinction to give science any definition at all.
I would argue instead that all scientific results are elements of theories , theories at elements of paradigms or scientific worldviews , and scientific worldviews are regional ontologies. so an empirical result only makes sense as an element in a relational totality that functions as a gestalt framework. A science can undermine its own claims in a minor way ( falsification) by remaining within a particular ontology(paradigm, worldview) or by replacing one paradigm with another , in which case there is a gestalt shift in the overall worldview , which is not merely a falsification, since the old and the new ontologies are not strictly commensurable.
This process is no different than how philosophy evolves., except for the fact that the methods of science tend to be more conventional and generic than those of philosophical inquiry. The methods of science don’t allow it to ‘progress’ any more effectively or quickly that philosophy.
:) You need to read up on how theories are presented. This is like going to a fight and bringing with you the wrong training.
[math](\forall x) (Mx)[/math], where Mx: x is material. The negation of [math](\forall x) (Mx)[/math] is [math](\exists x) \neg (Mx)[/math]. In other words we can falsify materialism. Find something that exists that isn't either matter or energy and we're done! Materialism is disprovable and so it has to be scientific in the Popperian sense.
Say there's something, an x, and we need to demonstrate, to prove nonphysicalism, that x isn't material (matter/energy). In the simplest of terms we need to show that x neither has mass nor volume (matter) and that no work can be done with it (energy). Is the required proof beyond our capabilities? How do we distinguish something that has no mass, no volume, no energy from nothing?
Add to our problems the fact that this x (includes the mind as per nonphysicalism) seems capable of having an effect on our bodies via the brain. Material objects like the body/the brain need energy input to do work. That means there should be an extra amount of energy that can't be explained materialistically. Have we measured this, to borrow a term from the frontiers of physics, dark energy?