Any ‘theory’ that is given will necessarily be one that is ‘physical’/‘material’.

Wayfarer: On further thought, I’m rather intrigued by why you would say that, and why it appears obvious to you.

I like sushi - Because a theory only has meaning if it can be tested. — I like sushi

Right - but that only applies to empirical theories, which the argument from reason is not. It's closer in nature to Kant's transcendental theories (i.e. given that we know X, what must be the case in order that we know it.)

Is there an argument from "because" having two senses to there being two realms, one ruled by Physics or Something and one ruled by Reason or Something? If that's even what we're going for. — Srap Tasmaner

That is exactly what is at issue. There's a detailed discussion of this issue in this .pdf file, The Argument from Reason, Victor Reppert, Pp 356- . I won't try and re-state it again, but it is distinguishing between physical cause-and-effect and logical ground-and-consequence, and saying that the latter can't be reduced to, or explained in terms of, the former.

I think consideration of the role of networks of neurons, and disregarding the molecular details on which the neurons supervene, is an appropriate level of looking at things for the purpose of this discussion
— wonderer1

It might be, were this a computer science or neuroscience forum. — Wayfarer

It's disappointing to see such anti-intellectualism here. Especially in light of Fooloso4 having so recently posted this.

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. Written by philosophers for philosophers. With a specialized language designed only for the initiated, a cramped style of writing intended to ward off attack, overburdened by its own theory laden stranglehold on thinking and seeing, enamored by its linguistic prowess and the production of problems that only arise within this hermetically sealed sterile environment. It either laments the fact that it is regarded as irrelevant or takes this to be the sign of its superiority. — Fooloso4

It's disappointing to see such anti-intellectualism here. — wonderer1

It's not 'anti-intellectualism'. You haven't actually addressed the topic of the OP - what you've tried to do, is shift the discussion to discussion about neural networks and evolutionary psychology. Perhaps you could demonstrate how viewing the question in those terms, casts light on the basic contention, which is about the relationship of physical causation and logical necessity, and the sense in which rational inference can or can't be reduced to, or understood in terms of, the physical sciences.

And incidentally, see my response to the very post that you reference. You think that response is also 'anti-intellectual'?

What are your thoughts on replacing "true" and "false" with "more accurate" and "less accurate"? — wonderer1

No problem whatsoever. You would then need evidence though and come to the conclusion that the claim is nonsense because there is no possible non-physical or non-material evidence.

This really makes no sense. Again the argument is about the means by which reasoned inference may result in true beliefs. And any argument which has to place reality in scare quotes ought to be looked at askance. — Wayfarer

Logic is abstract. Reality is not. Any abstract argument should be applied to reality with care. Non-natural and non-material are nothing/other. If there is some other means we have yet to bring it into the light.

Logic is abstract. Reality is not. Any abstract argument should be applied to reality with care. — I like sushi

Modern science has gotten many spectacular results from the interpretation of data in the light of mathematical abstractions. That is the subject of Eugene Wigner's famous paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. An excellent illustration is Dirac's discovery of anti-matter, which was formulated purely on the basis of mathematical projection, and not empirically validated until years later.

Validation is kind of important. If it was not validated then what. If something happens it happens and if it does not it does not. The logic and rationality behind it are determiners but they are useful guides.

If your position that Rationality exists in some supernatural realm that is fine. Logic is flawless in an abstract realm becuase it is discrete. Reality may or may not map 1 to 1 onto some logical principles or it may not.

Any such arguments always fall sort as we are limited. I will state though that we know things due to experience (including rationalism).

Edit: I forgot to answer your last question. I don't have a clear idea of what you are asking with your question, but what I see it as adding to the discussion, is further consideration and clarification of the paradigm I'm presenting. — wonderer1

No worries. I guess where I was heading is that if animals have rudimentary intentionality, what does this say about a more evolved human version? Is intentionality just a hallmark of complexity (an idea mocked by many). @Wayfarer argues that human rationality and intentionality is special. He's not the only one. Can we infer anything additional about this matter from understanding animal behaviour?

Nietzsche had his own theories how the world functions. I think his extremely cynical views represent biologism. Or that the world becomes "fatally" ordered or disordered through the battle of strong and weak ones.

Delete

thats classical canon aswell strong is alazon and weak is eiron. Alazon makes a bunch of deceptive truth claims that people believe that give him power, the eiron is underdog thay must transend using a body that stresses from mental exertion.

No worries. I guess where I was heading is that if animals have rudimentary intentionality, what does this say about a more evolved human version? Is intentionality just a hallmark of complexity (an idea mocked by many). — Tom Storm

I would mock that idea as well. It's not simply a matter of degree of complexity. I think that only physical systems with outputs, that are about some aspect of their inputs have intentionality.

I strongly encourage watching this video (or otherwise look into the subject) in order to develop an intuitive recognition of how networks of neurons can be systems with outputs that are about some aspect of the system's input. For me, understanding this stuff has been of immense benefit in understanding intuition, when to trust and distrust my intuitions, and how to improve my intuitions. Understanding the fine details of what is discussed in the video isn't so important for the context of this thread, as developing a recognition of how intentionality can emerge in what is a relatively simple system.

Wayfarer argues that human rationality and intentionality is special. He's not the only one. Can we infer anything additional about this matter from understanding animal behaviour? — Tom Storm

Well, a substantial amount has been learned about human brains from studying animal brains, but if "this matter" is the human capacity for philosophical thought, then I'd think understanding of animal behavior would be of limited usefulness. (Now if "this matter" was the behavior of humans on a philosophy forum, much might be learned by watching a documentary on chimpanzees.)

Anyway, in response to your question I'm at an I don't know where to begin state, so I'll defer to Kurt Vonnegut:

Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why? '
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.

The fallacy of division reminds us that that which true for a whole needn’t be true of its parts. So a vast combination of non-intentional and non-purposeful processes could form an intentional and purposeful being.

Reasoning, forming beliefs, making logical inferences, seeking to arrive at a true understanding—these are the activities of a human being.

Human beings are physical and chock-full of neurochemicals and synapses. Human beings are often described as intentional and purposeful. They are rational.

Since human beings are physical, and their actions are often intentional and purposeful and rational, beliefs are inferred by both physical and rational causes.

So beliefs can still be fully explained in terms of physical causes, and naturalism remains true.

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. In judgments of randomness, there is always a degree of doubt. Statistical analysis is inherently limited to probabilities instead of certainties*1. But I was talking about Philosophy, not Mathematics. For philosophical purposes, we routinely make judgements about Necessity vs Chance. I don't know about animals, but human nature seems to have an innate sense of Order vs Disorder. And, of course, there may be emotional reactions in those faced with Orderly/Predictable vs Disorderly/Unpredictable situations.

But this is a calm reasonable intellectual philosophy forum --- no heretics in dungeons --- so what I'm talking about is the Logical Connotations of an Ontological question : " Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program, or a random sequence of accidents". If the universe is a series of accidents, going nowhere, then the project of Science is impossible*2. But, if there is at least some perceptible order within background randomness, the project of Philosophy --- to make sense of the world --- is reasonable*3. For now, you can ignore the "self-learning" interpretation of some observers. We can get into that later.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? Are you able --- can you convince yourself --- to make such a philosophical generalization? Caution, your answer may have emotional implications. I'm not asking you to go on record though ; it's just you and me here. Are you afraid to make such a summary judgment of the historical patterns of evolutionary development over 14 billion years? :smile:


*1. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article by the physicist Eugene Wigner. In the paper, Wigner observes that a physical theory's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions. ___Wikipedia

*2. Nature of Science :
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems. Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation.
https://www.shapeoflife.org/nature-science-scientific-knowledge-assumes-order-and-consistency-natural-systems

*3. Laws of Nature :
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.
https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

Are the countless neuroscience discoveries, medicine, psychiatrics, etc. all just correlations? Of course not.
— Philosophim

But they don't entail what you say they entail. Have you ever encountered the book The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, by Hacker and Bennett? — Wayfarer

Of course they entail what they entail. All you have to do is show that brain death and a lack of mind are not a correlate. All you have to do is demonstrate how when neuroscientists analyze the brain, they can predict accurately what a person will think or say next up to 10 seconds before they say it. If my points are so easy to counter, then you should be able to easily give a counter to them. Citing a book vaguely does nothing. That's an appeal to authority, not an argument.

From my perspective, everything you write on the forum comprises wholly and solely what Philosophim thinks is obvious, accompanied by a strong sense of indignation that someone else can question what, to you, are obvious facts. This is your response to everything I address to you. — Wayfarer

And yet if they were not obvious facts, you would be able to counter them easily wouldn't you? Instead you retreat and answer with things like:

Have you ever written a term paper in philosophy? Ever actually studied it? Because I can see no indication of that. — Wayfarer

This is someone who is insecure about their own intelligence. Don't be Wayfarer. You're a smart person. But a smart person should not be so easily caught up in their own ego. Its a poison trap of smart people to think that "If I just read a bunch of papers and cite them, people will think I'm smart." You have knowledge, but you seem unable to critically think about that knowledge when its challenged from a new perspective. Thus you retreat. I call this out so that you'll attempt to improve Wayfarer instead of getting haughty and making poor appeals to authority.

Here's the truth. It doesn't matter what the background of someone is in philosophy. It matters if you can think logically, critically, and honestly. You attempting to put up barriers when you're countered is unbecoming. If you must know, am I formally educated? Yes. Am I intelligent? Objectively yes. I do not post my background as a "flex" because I don't want people to just agree with me for the wrong reason. The arguments I give should stand on their own, as should yours. Eliminating such inconsequential considerations such as "status" lets us get right to the arguments instead of our egos.

I am dissappointed, but never surprised, to observe the routine deprecation of the faculty of reason. I think the classical notion of reason is rather non-PC, for various reasons, chief among them that it distinguishes humans from other species. — Wayfarer

I suppose, in order to avoid the historical slavery of political/religious Spiritualism (soul more important/essential than body, and ideals worth dying for), Materialism has gone to the opposite extreme : a mundane real body without a spooky ideal mind ; hence, free-range animals with guns & computers instead of teeth & claws.

However, my interest in philosophy/science is that it allows us to do what animals can't : to know thyself. A bit of introspection can make us both proud of human culture, and ashamed of its imperfections. We may be almost indistinguishable from animals in our biology, but human psychology allows us to use tools for leverage to move the world.

Yet, when ungoverned by Reason, those tools can turn us into blood-thirsty savages. "Guns don't kill people; People with guns, knives, tanks, missiles kill people". Often for irrational reasons : e.g. Putin's political dreams of a glorious ideal empire justify Ukrainocide. Aren't humans distinguished!

Does Materialism/Physicalism inherently turn us into secular humanists & pacifists? Is there a philosophical middle ground, where physical bodies & metaphysical minds can coexist? :worry:

Again, take a look at the chapter headings and abstracts (all available online) of Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. He has a compelling answer to at least part of this question. — Wayfarer

I just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. It seems to address some of the common sticking points on this forum. I'm guessing that he leans toward a Platonic worldview, but I'll try to remain open-minded. :smile:

That's an appeal to authority, not an argument. — Philosophim

That's a copout. We cite books and philosophers in discussions here constantly. It's not a fallacy in informal discussions if the authority is a valid one.

Of course they entail what they entail. All you have to do is show that brain death and a lack of mind are not a correlate. All you have to do is demonstrate how when neuroscientists analyze the brain, they can predict accurately what a person will think or say next up to 10 seconds before they say it. If my points are so easy to counter, then you should be able to easily give a counter to them. — Philosophim

Would any of that be different if this were all a dream?

That's an appeal to authority, not an argument.
— Philosophim

That's a copout. We cite books and philosophers in discussions here constantly. It's not a fallacy in informal discussions if the authority is a valid one. — RogueAI

No, citing a book without any specific arguments from the book is an appeal to authority. If an argument from the book had been presented to counter my point, that would have been fine.

Of course they entail what they entail. All you have to do is show that brain death and a lack of mind are not a correlate. All you have to do is demonstrate how when neuroscientists analyze the brain, they can predict accurately what a person will think or say next up to 10 seconds before they say it. If my points are so easy to counter, then you should be able to easily give a counter to them.
— Philosophim

Would any of that be different if this were all a dream? — RogueAI

Can you prove that this is all a dream? That's like saying "Would it all be different if we were all made out of cotton candy?" Its a fun thing to explore, but without providing an argument that we are in fact, made out of cotton candy, its not an argument worth considering in a discussion of facts. It is not a correlation or supposition that the mind comes from the brain. It is a scientific fact. Not that a fact cannot be overturned, or we can't suppose there's more out there than we currently know. If you're going to say a fact is wrong, you need to prove it.

Can you prove that this is all a dream? That's like saying "Would it all be different if we were all made out of cotton candy?" Its a fun thing to explore, but without providing an argument that we are in fact, made out of cotton candy, its not an argument worth considering in a discussion of facts. — Philosophim

I can't prove it's all a dream. I'm simply asking you if all the science that's been done would necessarily be any different if all this was a dream. Would it?

Also: we dream and create worlds every night. Your cotton candy example is absurd. Idealism is taken seriously by people and philosophers. It can't be dismissed with a hand-wave.

I can't prove it's all a dream. I'm simply asking you if all the science that's been done would necessarily be any different if all this was a dream. Would it? — RogueAI

I don't know. You're asking about a fictional reality. We can't make judgements about fictional realities, because they're fictional. Can we create a fictional reality where we decide science is different? Sure. Can we create a fictional reality where we decide science is the same? Sure. Its fiction, so there are no limits on what we can do.

I don't know. You're asking about a fictional reality. We can't make judgements about fictional realities, because they're fictional. Can we create a fictional reality where we decide science is different? Sure. Can we create a fictional reality where we decide science is the same? Sure. Its fiction, so there are no limits on what we can do. — Philosophim

OK, so all the neuroscience that's been done is consistent with an idealistic reality. Why should I then believe that the prima facie neural causation model that you champion is actual causation? I would if the model you describe could explain how things are conscious and why consciousness is present at all, but materialism/physicalism/naturalism has utterly failed to solve the mind-body problem. How long are we going to put up with that failure before we start to explore new theories? What if the mind-body problem is still around 1,000 years from now? At what point do you start to question your metaphysical assumptions?

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. — Gnomon

No, I was talking about how things seem to us as opposed to how they might really be. When we talk about order, it is based on our models of what order appears to be to us.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? — Gnomon

My point is simple. How would we know? We seem to have discovered some regularities in our little patch. We can claim no such knowledge about the whole universe. I'm not even certain physics works the same across the universe - what's to say it isn't largely a function/invention of human cognition?

OK, so all the neuroscience that's been done is consistent with an idealistic reality. Why should I then believe that the prima facie neural causation model that you champion is actual causation? — RogueAI

Some of neuroscience is almost certainly idealistic, in which case idealistic philosophy has free reign. But the fact that the mind comes from the brain is not idealistic, it is decades of research and experiments that continue to confirm this as a fact. From brain surgery, anesthesia, brain damage research, psychadelics, and psychiatric medicine there are a host of things to choose from. If the brain did not cause the mind, then all of these fields which rely on this fact, would have catastrophic failure rates and be no more than charlatans.

You can even test it on yourself. Go get drunk tonight and see how it affects your mind. That is due to the alcohol impacting your brain. Its an extremely simple test to confirm for yourself while having a little fun.

I would if the model you describe could actually explain how things are conscious and why consciousness is present at all, but materialism/physicalism/naturalism has utterly failed to solve the mind-body problem. — RogueAI

If you are talking about certain details of consciousness, of course we don't understand everything yet. For example, we'll never know what its like to exist as a brain from the subjective viewpoint of the brain. That's outside of our measurement. But we can most certainly impact consciousness by manipulating the brain. Anesthesia knocks you unconscious for surgerys. You think that's all just a happy accident? That's all based on the fact that brain affects the mind, and anesthesia affects the brain in a particular manner.

Don't confuse not fully mapping out the brain with being unable to make certain conclusions about the brain. We're trying to reverse engineer the brain's specifics, but we have overall conclusions about how it works that have continually held up to tests and critiques. If you reversed engineered a car, you might not understand how magnetism works, but you could understand the parts of the car and how they interact. The car does not run if the engine is not active, despite not knowing all the details on how gas combustion causes the engine to run.

How long are going to put up with that failure before we start to explore new theories? What if the mind-body problem is still around 1,000 years from now? At what point do you start to question your metaphysical assumptions? — RogueAI

You misunderstand. You can always question and wonder at alternatives. I can sit and ponder that all of physics is somehow a big misunderstanding. I can have a lot of fun coming up with other theories. But those are all suppositions, untested, and non-factual. None of those override facts themselves. If I said my crazy physics alternative fixed everything with physics, but I could not adequately demonstrate this, I would be a fraud.

So have fun with idealism. Say, "What if...?" Explore and think on alternatives. But until there is something factually substantial behind those musings, it is entirely inappropriate to say they counter known facts.

You can always question and wonder at alternatives. — Philosophim

The alternatives gain more credibility as the mainstream theories fail to explain observations. We see this already with Modified Newtonian dynamics gaining more ground as the mystery of dark matter continues to be unresolved. If the Hard Problem is still around 1,000 years from now, it will be devastating for materialism/physicalism. You're already seeing a resurgence in idealism and panpsychism because of it.

If the Hard Problem is still around 1,000 years from now, it will be devastating for materialism/physicalism. — RogueAI

Not at all. The only viable version of the hard problem is it stands today is that we cannot know what another subject is experiencing from that subjects viewpoint. We could take two subjects and stimulate identical brain states to where they both said, "I see a green tree." We could never independently verify what that green tree looked like specifically to subject 1 or 2. No one can. To my mind, there's no theory that ever could either. This in no way invalidates the fact that brain causes the mind.

The only viable version of the hard problem is it stands today is that we cannot know what another subject is experiencing from that subjects viewpoint. We could take two subjects and stimulate identical brain states to where they both said, "I see a green tree." We could never independently verify what that green tree looked like specifically to subject 1 or 2. No one can. To my mind, there's no theory that ever could either. — Philosophim

That's not the only viable problem. How does consciousness arise from matter? Why is consciousness present at all? Why are only certain arrangements of matter conscious?

If these questions are still unanswered after 1,000 years, no will believe in materialism. Why would they? It will have failed to answer some of the most basic questions.

That's not the only viable problem. How does consciousness arise from matter? Why is consciousness present at all? Why are only certain arrangements of matter conscious?

If these questions are still unanswered after 1,000 years, no will believe in materialism. Why would they? It will have failed to answer some of the most basic questions. — RogueAI

Those are easy problems, not hard problems. Easy and hard do not denote their difficulty in finding a solution, but their difficulty in finding a path to a solution at all. The hard problem I noted has no pathway to a solution. Your questions have clear pathways of investigation and testability. Considering the amount of progress we've made in just the last 30 years, there seems to be no reason to alter course for the next 30, let alone 1000.

Something else to think about, but your questions can equally be applied to almost any other state of matter. How does water arise from H20? Why is water a possible existence at all? Why are only certain arrangements of atoms water while others are not? We know that water is made out of molecules, and consciousness comes from the brain, but there are still deeper questions that we continue to look into.

Still a lot to discover!

Those are easy problems, not hard problems. — Philosophim

I don't think so. I think we'll see science continue to flounder, and it will reach a crisis when the Ai's start operating at human levels, which won't be too long from now, and science will have no answer to the question everyone will be asking: are these things conscious?

But maybe you're right and there will be a breakthrough soon. Then you can resurrect this and laugh at me, but I don't think that's going to happen.