Just type in your own "quote tags"

To begin a "quote" start off with

[ quote ] (only don't use any spaces)

Then type in your text here

then type

[ /quote ]

To close the "quote box".

Like so: The above example would come out as follows when spaces are deleted.




You can also quote this post and look at the how I did this.

Note: It can be troublesome if you aren't careful.

You need to match up every "quote" with an ending "/quote" in pairs. If you fail to pair them up correctly you'll end up with a mess.

JB, causal determinism is completely independent from predictions.

This is exactly what my addition to this topic was trying to get across. You cannot judge causal determinism based on the ability to predict becuase it mismashes what we know, with what is, and so far it appears everyone agrees that we cannot know certain things regardless of those things causal relationships to prior events.


So causal determinism cannot pertain to the ability to make predictions. We can fail to make predictions all day long and still live in a causally determined universe with preemption of existence over preemption of mind.

IMHO, until a person understands why this happens to be true, you cannot really even begin to apply scientific knowledge to the philosophy of mind. It really is paramount. It appears Abra has understood this distinction.

Fun topic.

Yes, I absolute agree with you on this.

What I'm saying is that either one is possible - "preemption of existence or preemption of mind"

They both are equally within the realm of possibility.

I don't deny that at all. And if we're going to assume "preemption of existence" then we're necessarily going to address the idea of consciousness as some sort of 'emergent property' of otherwise unconscious matter.

For me, that very concept right there leads to all sorts of questions like, what exactly is this "emergent property" that is having this experience?

To me, that is a deeply troublesome question to address for those who choose to consider "preemption of existence". And it certainly has no clear-cut answers, IMHO.

Am I saying that it can't be that way? No I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that, for me, "preemption of mind" makes more sense.

Now, having said that. Since BOTH of these ideas are within the realm of "possibility" insofar as science can tell, I see no reason to rule out one over the other.

But this is what many secular atheists seem to want to do. They want to claim that science somehow favors "preemption of existence" over "preemption of mind".

And it's that stance that I refute. There is nothing in science, or about the scientific method in general that can support that view.

Therefore to say that "preemption of mind" is any more or less scientific than "preemption of existence" is nonsense.

And conversely, to say that "preemption of existence" is any more or less scientific than "preemption of mind" is equally nonsense.

Science can't be used to support or determine either of these cases over the other.

So they are on equal "scientific" footing. (i.e. neither of them can be supported by science)

~~~~~~

The most common argument that is given is this: "Well we can see that things "exist" so we at least have reason to explore that possibility, whereas their doesn't appear to be any reason to explore idea that we have no 'evidence' for.

My argument against this common notion is really quite simple.

First off, we do have scientific reasons and 'evidence' to justify such things. The scientific unproven postulates of both QM and the Inflationary Hot Big Bang theory, both assume and even require that 'non-physical' information preempts the phenomena in question.

So, in this sense, many scientific theories are already actually working under the assumption of "preemption of mind" by their very postulate that rules (i.e. organized information) must have existed prior to the creation of what we call physical existence.

For this reason I see absolutely no conflict between ideas of "preemption of mind" and scientific thinking.

And so it irks me when people act like as if I'm being "irrational" by considering these things in the "face" of scientific knowledge. There's nothing irrational about these ideas at all. They are no more "irrational" than many of the actual theories of science.

And it really upsets me when they claim that I don't "understand" scientific theories and knowledge, like as if, if I had a better "understanding" I could see the "folly" of my ideas.

No, that's not true at all. There is nothing in all of science that currently conflicts with any ideas that I entertain concerning "preemption of mind".

That is the fallacy that is often being held out in the name of "science". There is no truth to that charge. It's that simple.

Thanks,

I tried that a couple times and just goofed it up. Stopped trying because I thought there was another way to do it.

Probably should pay better attention then!

Your conclusion that this is true hinges on the premise or assumption of a causally determined universe with preemption of existence over preemption of mind.

Which has not been proven and cannot be known.

Even with that premise, I would have to disagree that any kind of deterministic universe could ever exist and support life.



If such a universe could exist with all events being 'set' and 'determined' then the past, present and future would be 'set' and unchangeable. Free will would not exist at any level. (Which probably means that life would not exist.) It would be like a 3D holographic movie from start to finish that never deviated from beginning to end.

If there were an observer from outside of this deterministic universe that observer could probably watch the movie over and over and know with certainty what was going to happen at the end every time. If that were not possible, then any other identical universes would proceed in the exact same way, ending in the exact same way.

No, don't think any human observer could "predict" anything inside of any deterministic universe simply because he would not have all the information.

Wikipedia:
Determinism is also the name of a broader philosophical view, which conjectures that every type of event, including human cognition (behaviour, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events.

The above kind of determinism suggests that every decision I make is determined by a previous event in my personal experience. No its not. I say that because my decisions are not automatic programmed responses to stimuli. If that were true, then I would never need to mull over a decision. I would only have to react or respond to stimuli without thinking or deciding a course of action.

Absurd idea.

Therefore, I conclude that this universe is not and cannot be deterministic and it is not a universe with preemption of existence over preemption of mind.

What it is, is a universe INSIDE OF A field of MIND.


EEEK WE LIVE IN A MIND FIELD!

I do believe that every decision I make is built upon the last decision I made and the event I caused with that decision.

In other words, I am cause.
I am also the effect of my own causes.

The effect you cause is a ripple.

It ripples though the sphere of those it touches.

A strong enough effect will ripple around the sphere of the Earth and come right back to you.

Causing changes in places around the earth you may never have seen.

Before returning to you.

My effects are probably not that strong.

Well its clear that we disagree on this abra, I however will not claim your stance is nonsense, out of respect.

I do argue that preemption of existence is favored by observation of reality. We find in every circumstance that minds only exist where brains have been developed. Brains being physical material objects, the components of which exists prior to the conscious awareness of mind.

Insofar as science is based in empiricism it supports preemption of existance.

When we are able to analyze a brainless mind with scientific methods I will then change my mind. Until then I propose the default position is preemption of existence.

A brain is not a mind.

I won't claim your stance is nonsense and based on your personal beliefs either. Out of respect of course.

I agree, a mind is one of the things a brain does.

Agreed, among other causes of course.

I am a compatibilist, I believe that when people think of free will being incompatible with causal determinism they are neglecting the richness of reality. I always get the same feeling when emergent properties are derided, that it is an oversight of the amazing richness of the material world.

Yes, but isn't that very observation itself rather circular?

If science is based on empiricism, then does it actually make sense to say that science "supports" preemption of existence, or that it is simply limited by that assumption?

What sense does it make to say that it "supports" it's own assumption?

I've already acknowledged that science, via it's very own method of inquiry, is limited to observations and descriptions.

That's what it is. That's all it does. It obverses and then reports what it has observed. One thing that it has observed is that there is a strong "quantitative" or mathematical property to physical behavior.

It has more recently observed that the quantitative rules of behavior in the macro world that we observe are not the same as the quantitative rules of the world when we try to observe the behavior of the very fine grains of our "existence".

In short, science's own assumption of "preemption of existence", starts to break down at the quantum level. Things there are seen not to "preexist" but rather they appear to "pop" into and out of "existence" based on "pure rules". (i.e. information, or the preemption of some sort of 'mind' even if only a primitive cosmic computer.)

In other words, at the quantum level science's own preemption of "existence" appears to be vague at best, and totally broken down at worst.


~~~~~~

In fact I would argue the following:



Yes science is based in empiricism which itself is based upon an assumption of preemption of existence.

But look where that line of thinking has led us? It has led us to the science of Quantum Mechanics, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, (which is just the observation of complementarity in the precise form of a mathematical statement)

So what is this ultimately saying?

Well it's basically saying:



It's saying that the empirical method of investigation ENDS here.

Until QM fails and complementarity turns out to be false (i.e. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is thwarted), then the empirical method of inquiry can go no further.

Science has discovered its own grave.



Now this may sound a bit morbid, but this is indeed a prediction of a scientific theory itself.

So either this scientific theory itself is WRONG, and science can once again be resurrected when this is shown to be the case.

Or the "Science Method of Inquiry" is truly dead, as it has discovered its own limitations and has predicted them in a precise mathematically formalized theory.

If Quantum Mechanics is true, then the Scientific method of inquiry stops here.

So how can science be said to "support" a concept of "preemption of existence" when that very premise has laid science to rest forever.

R.I.P. The Scientific Method of Inquiry.

It has served its purpose and brought us to this dead end. Now we need to find a NEW method of inquiry if we are to have any hope of moving forward.

It is said that Einstein dreamed of what it is like to travel on a beam of light.

This imagination he had gave him ideas...


and the rest is history:)

Nothing is certain for very long. Always new things arrive. Sometimes it takes a decade or even a century. Other times it can be as soon as tommorow. We humans have a hard time waiting don't we! Patience! We will know more unless we have managed to destroy our planet before it can happen then nothing will stop our imagination and knowledge from attaining more ideas that can be certain. Well at least for a little while anyway. :)

I believe that.

In fact, science may very well be "resurrected" from its quantum grave at some future time.

I think most, if not all scientists, are indeed hoping that this will come to pass.

We always seem to find 'loopholes' in what we currently believe we know.

For example, Einstein discovered that it's impossible for matter or energy to propagate "through" space-time at faster than light-speed. However, the Inflationary Big Bang theory has the universe expanding far faster than the speed of light at one point. Is this a contradiction to Relativity? No it isn't because the universe isn't expanding "through" space-time so the restriction of light-speed does not apply.

Perhaps we will find situations associated with QM as well. Perhaps there are situations where the laws of QM won't apply. Then we can 'violate' those laws, without really 'violating' them (at least not within the context in which they hold)

I think this is the kind of thing that scientists are holding out for.

However, the point that I try to make is that "current" scientific knowledge and evidence does not support those hopes.

So to claim that science "currently" supports a preemption of existence over a preemption of mind right now with its current knowledge, is simply untrue.

And isn't that all we can truly speak of? The current state of affairs?

Anything beyond that is just wishful thinking.

Jeanniebean: "A brain is not a mind."


Bushidobillyclub: "I agree, a mind is one of the things a brain does."



Take a brain out of a body, keep it "alive" artificially.
Do you think you could hook it up to some robot, machine, or computer and make it work as a human mind?

Are brain transplants possible? I know they are doing a lot with animals in that regard.

If brain transplants are possible, from human to human... who do you think the human will believe they are with a body from one person and a brain from another person?

Or will they become a brand new person?

The pattern of learning and thinking process which has developed into
the brain of one person would transfer from person to person but the
chemical environment of the brain - the ability to supply important
neurotransmitters for example like serotonin would come via chemical
pathways affected by the new body in various ways.

So there is an interplay of these two systems and the person would
have encoded the experiential learning but differ in processing
of this learning.

This results in a different person much as someone who may have undergone
a major change in their body chemistry (without the transplant) can be
a different person. It is not simply the physical organ ~ the brain but
also the biochemistry on which it functions.

It would be circular to expect Science to support preemption of existence as science is based on preemption of existence. Science does not work unless we base it on Naturalism which requires preemption of existence. My entire position is that this conversation dances around the need for preemption of existence to avoid solipsism and the complete destruction of methodological naturalism which is being used to try to prove it is wrong.

Its a fun ride, but a lot like watching fear and loathing in las vegas while following along like a drinking game.

Science is not based on empiricism, empiricism is what has made science so successful. Just like Science does not NEED falsification, however falsification allows science to self correct, to narrow the scope, to focus the picture down to what is true from what is possible true.

I think we all would find a philosophy of science class highly interesting, I know it is something I would enjoy I have only had time for the very most basic training.

I would disagree with this, because the "scientific method" which is the basis of science, is indeed based on empiricism.

And yes, it has been wonderfully productive and it has served to work in many cases and dispel many myths. There is a structure to the macro world of our existence and that structure can indeed be described via an empirical means of analysis.

For example, I'm totally convinced that the Big Bang theory is indeed true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Empiricism has basically proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt. Same thing is true of evolution. Same thing is true of the atomic theory of matter. Same thing is true of all of the macro laws of physics.

I don't deny that at all. All of the discoveries of science are indeed valid discoveries. I'll be the first to accept and embrace this.

But that, in and of itself, does not make science infallible in every possible aspect of inquiry into the true essence of nature.

We already know and understand how why the macro laws of physics exist. They come out of the probabilities of the quantum realm. So the macro laws of physics are "REAL", they actually work and determine the macro properties of this universe.

When I say that science has reached a "dead end", I am in no way attempting to imply that previous scientific knowledge suddenly becomes meaningless. The scientific method of inquiry has a valid place. In fact, there are still things that we don't yet fully understand about the world which can indeed be explained by the scientific method.

All I'm saying is that Quantum Mechanics is not one of these things by it's view own postulates and rules.

If the property of complementary is correct, as QM demands, then the scientific method can never go beyond that. That's just a fact. The empirical method of inquiry and the property of complementary are mutually exclusive.



I've taken quite a few courses on this subject. Some I've agreed with, others I haven't. Even courses of this nature can often be rather subjective depending on who's teaching them and their own personal tendency to lean in a particular direction.

There are also arguments too that people now give stating that "science" is no longer tied directly to empiricism, but it has now expanded to include highly abstract mathematical concepts.

Well, that very notion right there is highly controversial in scientific circles.

Some scientists ask "Can we see it in the lab". In other words is it empirical? And they demand very passionately that if we can't then it's "not science" it's philosophy.

Other scientists, are more open to allowing pure mathematics to lead the way and consider that to be "scientific enough".

In other words, they are willing to make a move from "empiricism" to "pure logic" and continue to call that "Science".

String Theory is a mixture of both. It's accepts QM as a postulate (you could say that QM is empirical in the sense that we discovered this mathematics empirically). So String Theory is founded on the "dead end" of empiricism. It then reaches out into the unknown using pure mathematics and a speculation of multiple dimensions that have not yet been empirically verified to even exist.

So is that science? Or philosophy?

I personally feel that modern science is indeed becoming more philosophical and less empirical.

And I'm not arguing against this. Perhaps the universe that we live in is actually more philosophical and less empirical too.

In other words, science is currently transitioning from a previous stance of "preemption of existence" (i.e. everything is empirical) to a stance of "preemption of mind" (i.e. maybe things can be explained using just abstract mathematical ideas instead)

Plato's "Mathematical Mind of God" resurrected.