indicates nothing except that you are lacking in skills of critical thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see why you're bringing insults into it, I'm not calling you stupid.

From a Bayesian perspective, evidence for a belief Q is information that increases the probability assigned to Q. Keep in mind that evidence isn't proof, evidence is just a shift in probabilities.

So take Q to be the statement "mental processes are physical processes". Now, the two pieces of information I listed before - the chemical effect on mental processes, and the early foray into AI that we're witnessing - I think pretty reasonably raise the probability of Q, compared to what Q would be given the opposite observations. Opposite observations being, a hypothetical world in which chemically altering the neuronal environment DOESN'T affect thinking, and in which simulating neurons in a computer DOESN'T produce a machine that can solve problems, pass the turing test, and generate internal models of the data it interacts with.

I don't think I'm lacking in anything intellectually when I say, the observations we have are evidence. I welcome you to disagree with me and tell me why, but I request that you leave the insults out next time.

What do you mean by "substantiated" if not proven? — Janus

I was taken it to mean "evidenced". An unsubstantiated claim is a claim without any evidence.

I was taken it to mean "evidenced". An unsubstantiated claim is a claim without any evidence. — flannel jesus

Two things which "seem" to be different must be proven to be the same before they can be accepted as being the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah well I agree with you that it's OBVIOUS that "proof" in the strong sense of the word is out of the picture here. So if he means that... well, he shouldn't.

I can't imagine what the weak sense of the word would be in this connection...'seems most plausible given the evidence we do have perhaps'...?

ignoring what MU is saying, I googled "meaning of unsubstantiated", and google tells me "not supported or proven by evidence".

"proven" there is in the loose sense of the word, because I think we both agree that it's not within the jurisdiction of evidence to "prove" things in the strong sense of the word proof - the strong sense like is employed in classic logic.

Evidence supports things, or it doesn't. And sometimes, you can have evidence on both sides of a question, right? Did Bob kill this person, or someone else? Well here's some evidence Bob killed her, here's some evidence Bob didn't.

So yeah, when it comes to evidence, "proof" is... kind of beside the point, which is why I like to think about it in bayesian terms.

:up:

What do you mean by "substantiated" if not proven? Scientific theories, much less philosophical claims, cannot be proven. Your apparent demand for absolute certainty (proof) leads if the logic is followed consistently to absolute skepticism. In that case just forget about claiming anything at all that is not analytically true or tautologous. — Janus

Scientific theories are proven through experimentation. To "substantiate" is to provide solid grounds for a claim. All science is proven (substantiated) in that way, or else it does not qualify as "science". Ideas which "seem plausible" do not qualify as science because these ideas are unsubstantiated, not proven by experimentation. The phrase "seem plausible" refers to an individual's attitudinal approach to the ideas rather than the soundness of the ideas. Therefore to accept such ideas, because they "seem plausible", is to demonstrate a lack of the philosophical skill known as critical thinking. To scoff at critical thinking, characterizing it as "absolute skepticism" demonstrates a significant attitudinal problem.

So take Q to be the statement "mental processes are physical processes". Now, the two pieces of information I listed before - the chemical effect on mental processes, and the early foray into AI that we're witnessing - I think pretty reasonably raise the probability of Q, compared to what Q would be given the opposite observations. Opposite observations being, a hypothetical world in which chemically altering the neuronal environment DOESN'T affect thinking, and in which simulating neurons in a computer DOESN'T produce a machine that can solve problems, pass the turing test, and generate internal models of the data it interacts with. — flannel jesus

This is irrelevant, and fails as an argument. Probabilities are only meaningful when there are assigned values, and there are no values assigned in this case. Take the probability of Q to be .0000001%, and the information you provided raises the probability of Q to .0000002%. Do you honestly believe that we ought to accept Q as true, now that the probability of Q being true has been doubled?

An unsubstantiated claim is a claim without any evidence. — flannel jesus

"Substantiated" implies solid evidence, well-grounded reliable evidence. "Evidence" is fundamentally subjective, as the result of judgement, and the evidence must be judged as credible. There is no such thing as "a claim without any evidence" because the claim itself is evidence. What is important is how the evidence is judged. In the preceding example, the .0000001% probability of Q must be based in some type of real evidence or else it would just be a case of arbitrarily claimed evidence. If further evidence raises the probability to .0000002%, this does not constitute credible evidence of the truth of Q. Therefore despite there being at least two bits of evidence for the claim of Q, the judgements of flannel and Janus, Q remains as unsubstantiated because these two lack in the capacity of critical thinking.

Do you honestly believe that we ought to accept Q as true, now that the probability of Q being true has been doubled? — Metaphysician Undercover

I literally said you don't have to accept it as true. It has evidence, whether you accept it as true or not.

Sounds good. It's just the word "seeming," which so often implies a lesser way of comprehending experience. But I understand that's not how you're using it.

….when they are examined from the outside, scientifically….
— J

Surely you realize the contradiction. To do anything scientifically is merely to do something in a certain way, but no matter what way it is done, it is still only a human that does it.
— Mww

This would only be a contradiction if we accept a very stringent definition of "objective" as meaning something like "untouched by human perception and thought." — J

I meant the contradiction to refer to examining from outside. No examination by a human is ever done from the outside, but always and only from the inside, re: himself. We examine the outside; we do not examine from the outside. Hence the contradiction.

"Doing something in a certain way" is, sorry, not nearly enough of a description — J

Agreed. The point being, it is we that does whatever it is that’s being done.
—————-

There's no required way to reduce either the mental or the neural to each other. — J

True, but the problem….problem here indicating reason’s aptitude for putting itself between a rock and a hard place….being there is, as yet, no possible way to reduce either to each other.

Imagine, if you will (in best Rod Serling impersonation)….the guy’s Nobel acceptance speech, after proving mental events are reducible to brain states in universal one-to-one correspondence (you know, scientifically speaking), concluding with the fact that for all recorded history of human thought….there never was exactly any such thing.
(Sigh)

- :up:

No examination by a human is ever done from the outside, but always and only from the inside, re: himself. — Mww

I might be missing the deeper point here. Couldn't we just as well say that every examination by a human (of anything external) must be done from the outside? "Inside/outside" is relative to whichever point of view we adopt. I can say, "I'm examining this turtle from the outside" meaning "outside the turtle," or "I'm examining this turtle from the inside" meaning "inside myself." Both are true, though the latter is far less common. But perhaps you could say more about why this seems important.

All I meant, in this context, was that it takes more than "being inside a human being" or "whatever we do is done by us" to establish a meaningful sense of subjectivity.

True, but the problem….problem here indicating reason’s aptitude for putting itself between a rock and a hard place….being there is, as yet, no possible way to reduce either to each other. — Mww

Right. I know I make this analogy a lot, but imagine trying, pre-Einstein, to explain how energy and mass are related. If the concepts you need just haven't been discovered yet, you can't get very far.

"Inside/outside" is relative to whichever point of view we adopt. — J

Isn’t there only one point of view, when examining, scientifically?

I might be missing the deeper point here. — J

If there was one, it’s that the subject, having always been first and foremost, isn’t anymore.

:cool:

The phrase "seem plausible" refers to an individual's attitudinal approach to the ideas rather than the soundness of the ideas. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Evidence" is fundamentally subjective, as the result of judgement, and the evidence must be judged as credible. There is no such thing as "a claim without any evidence" because the claim itself is evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

You contradict yourself, so nothing more need be said.

I'd like to see that claimed contradiction. Where can I find it?