Looking below the surface

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby Jim B. on Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:51 am

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:How exactly? Do you even understand the question? What threshold of empirical data will have to be crossed for us to be confident that we've "solved" consciousness and how will that data fill in the explanatory gap that I've been referring to again and again?

By "know" I mean hold with a fair degree of certainty. All certainty is relative; I assumed that was implicit.


No, that's not what I meant. What is it that we will know, regardless of the certainty level? Before you start amassing empirical data about a subject, it's always wise to know which question(s) you're asking the data to answer.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby The Pixie on Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:58 pm

Whether it explains our observations and experiences of consciousness to a good approximation.

What do you think, Jim?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby Jim B. on Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:23 am

The Pixie wrote:Whether it explains our observations and experiences of consciousness to a good approximation.

What do you think, Jim?


I think that regardless of how many correlations are established between physical facts and experiences, one can always ask, "But why are these physical facts accompanied by consciousness?" This is why empirical facts alone cannot close the so-called explanatory gap. It is primarily a conceptual and not an empirical issue, even though whatever solution is proposed will have to conform to and help explain observable phenomena. So if empirical research is designed to establish a set of correlations between physical events and consciousness, that can be done, but that isn't solving the hard problem. Consciousness doesn't fit the standard pattern of scientific reductions.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby The Pixie on Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:41 am

Jim B. wrote:I think that regardless of how many correlations are established between physical facts and experiences, one can always ask, "But why are these physical facts accompanied by consciousness?" This is why empirical facts alone cannot close the so-called explanatory gap. It is primarily a conceptual and not an empirical issue, even though whatever solution is proposed will have to conform to and help explain observable phenomena. So if empirical research is designed to establish a set of correlations between physical events and consciousness, that can be done, but that isn't solving the hard problem. Consciousness doesn't fit the standard pattern of scientific reductions.

So how will we know?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby Jim B. on Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:17 am

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:I think that regardless of how many correlations are established between physical facts and experiences, one can always ask, "But why are these physical facts accompanied by consciousness?" This is why empirical facts alone cannot close the so-called explanatory gap. It is primarily a conceptual and not an empirical issue, even though whatever solution is proposed will have to conform to and help explain observable phenomena. So if empirical research is designed to establish a set of correlations between physical events and consciousness, that can be done, but that isn't solving the hard problem. Consciousness doesn't fit the standard pattern of scientific reductions.

So how will we know?


I think the best chance of knowing is through a theory something like the one I've already described several times.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby The Pixie on Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:13 pm

Jim B. wrote:
The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:I think that regardless of how many correlations are established between physical facts and experiences, one can always ask, "But why are these physical facts accompanied by consciousness?" This is why empirical facts alone cannot close the so-called explanatory gap. It is primarily a conceptual and not an empirical issue, even though whatever solution is proposed will have to conform to and help explain observable phenomena. So if empirical research is designed to establish a set of correlations between physical events and consciousness, that can be done, but that isn't solving the hard problem. Consciousness doesn't fit the standard pattern of scientific reductions.

So how will we know?


I think the best chance of knowing is through a theory something like the one I've already described several times.

So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby Jim B. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:38 pm

The Pixie wrote:So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?


No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby The Pixie on Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:25 am

Jim B. wrote:
The Pixie wrote:So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?


No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!
The Pixie
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby Jim B. on Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:24 am

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
The Pixie wrote:So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?


No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!


No, that's not it. Consciousness isn't necessitated by physical facts, so it wouldn't be "solved" by science. It's not necessitated by structure and function. This is a slightly subtle point. ;)
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Postby The Pixie on Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:20 am

Jim B. wrote:
The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!


No, that's not it. Consciousness isn't necessitated by physical facts, so it wouldn't be "solved" by science. It's not necessitated by structure and function. This is a slightly subtle point. ;)

So how well the theory fits with things we know magically?

This is the bit you dance around, and claiming it is subtle really does not cut it. How do we know these "many other things we know" if not via observation and experience? And you even said including empirical facts!

How is this different to relativity, which was accepted because of how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Adventure of Faith (Religion/Spirituality)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron