Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Faustus5]

There is no metaphysics involved in denying that mental states and brain states are identical, BTW. It is a straightforward, strictly empirical observation (assuming the common definitions of "identity," of course).

Now, it is all completely bogus metaphysics and actually involves rejecting "strictly empirical observation". Because what can be observed empirically are just brain states and motor responses created by those brain states. That's all there is, period.

[Atla]

The fuss is about the mindbending problem at the heart of QM, called the measurement problem. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Steve understands this one.
In short (and take this as a metaphor, or with a bucket of salt): observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it

The "measurement problem", and its manifestation in the observations of particular experiments, has been discussed in various topics started by various posters here over the years. Here's one I started a few years ago as an example:

viewtopic.php?p=232485#p232485

Here's another example from even longer ago, by another poster, discussing the famous "delayed choice quantum eraser":
viewtopic.php?p=69588#p69588

Yeah, but it never really seems to hit you what this kind of observer-dependence seems to be telling us. This perfect correlation or connection or whatever we want to call it, between mental content and the outside physical world. Like they were one and the same kind of thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

[Dualism] was refuted indirectly by all of science

This seems unlikely. After all, reductionism - pretty much the archetype of dualism - is a core tool of science.

Reductionism is a tool, not ontology.

So embracing dualism, out of practical and pragmatic necessity, is OK, provided that ontological purity is maintained?

[Atla]

[Dualism] was refuted indirectly by all of science

This seems unlikely. After all, reductionism - pretty much the archetype of dualism - is a core tool of science.

Reductionism is a tool, not ontology.

So embracing dualism, out of practical and pragmatic necessity, is OK, provided that ontological purity is maintained?

Sure..

[GE Morton]

Yeah, but it never really seems to hit you what this kind of observer-dependence seems to be telling us. This perfect correlation or connection or whatever we want to call it, between mental content and the outside physical world. Like they were one and the same kind of thing.

There is a correlation between the "outside world" --- the one we conceive and talk about --- and mental content, but it is far from perfect. The mental content is directly experienced; that "outside world" is a theoretical construct built upon that mental content --- a dynamic construct that evolves and mutates over time.

There is, to be sure, another sense of "outside world" --- an hypothesized world completely independent of us which is the cause of our mental content. That outside world is unknowable by us, and hence about which we can say nothing.

[GE Morton]

Now, it is all completely bogus metaphysics and actually involves rejecting "strictly empirical observation". Because what can be observed empirically are just brain states and motor responses created by those brain states. That's all there is, period.

Huh. Are you now denying that mental phenomena exist? Or are you restricting "empirical" to third-party phenomena only?

[Atla]

Yeah, but it never really seems to hit you what this kind of observer-dependence seems to be telling us. This perfect correlation or connection or whatever we want to call it, between mental content and the outside physical world. Like they were one and the same kind of thing.

There is a correlation between the "outside world" --- the one we conceive and talk about --- and mental content, but it is far from perfect. The mental content is directly experienced; that "outside world" is a theoretical construct built upon that mental content --- a dynamic construct that evolves and mutates over time.

There is, to be sure, another sense of "outside world" --- an hypothesized world completely independent of us which is the cause of our mental content. That outside world is unknowable by us, and hence about which we can say nothing.

I find it difficult to address your comment. Not only does it seem to have nothing to do with the kind of perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, that's inherent to the measurement problem. But even other than, it still seems to makes no sense.

For example, if you really can't tell anything about the noumenon, then how can you tell that the noumenon is independent of us, and is the cause of our mental contect? Especially that these are unnecessary assumptions.

And even though we technically can never say anything about the noumenon, does that mean that we shouldn't? So that's it, forget science, forget philosophy, I'm stuck with my own mind, and let's end any inquiry there?

[Atla]

Kant doesn't seem to have realized that the dichotomy of noumena and phenomena is probably just a pragmatic one, not an ontological one. And most philosophers after him seem to have adopted this subtle dualistic mistake.

[Gertie]

Yeah, but it never really seems to hit you what this kind of observer-dependence seems to be telling us. This perfect correlation or connection or whatever we want to call it, between mental content and the outside physical world. Like they were one and the same kind of thing.

There is a correlation between the "outside world" --- the one we conceive and talk about --- and mental content, but it is far from perfect. The mental content is directly experienced; that "outside world" is a theoretical construct built upon that mental content --- a dynamic construct that evolves and mutates over time.

There is, to be sure, another sense of "outside world" --- an hypothesized world completely independent of us which is the cause of our mental content. That outside world is unknowable by us, and hence about which we can say nothing.

Those are both the same 'outside world'

You can only escape solipsism and talk about ''us'' if you assume that hypothesised 'outside world' exists and we both have a relationship with it. Because I am part of your 'outside world' and vice versa. So as soon as you invoke 'our' mental experience or observations you have already invoked a world you and I (and everybody else) share.

Then we can compare notes about the contents of our own experience and construct a shared model of our shared world.

[Faustus5]

Huh. Are you now denying that mental phenomena exist? Or are you restricting "empirical" to third-party phenomena only?

Yes, I'm restricting empirical to what can be verified intersubjectively to exist (that may be too stringent, but I'm doing it anyway!), and no, I'm not denying that mental phenomenon exist. I'm just saying we need to accept as a scientific fact that they are nothing above and beyond brain states and figure out a way to reconcile ourselves to that fact instead of inventing goofy non-scientific metaphysical claims that only philosophers take seriously.

[GE Morton]

Yes, I'm restricting empirical to what can be verified intersubjectively to exist (that may be too stringent, but I'm doing it anyway!), and no, I'm not denying that mental phenomenon exist.

That is a strange, if not paradoxical, construal of "empirical," given that everything verifiable intersubjectively is first apprehended subjectively, and cannot be intersubjectively verified. Empiricism begins from, rests upon, subjective mental phenomena. You're affirming the forest while denying the trees.

I'm just saying we need to accept as a scientific fact that they are nothing above and beyond brain states and figure out a way to reconcile ourselves to that fact instead of inventing goofy non-scientific metaphysical claims that only philosophers take seriously.

"Above and beyond" is a bit ambiguous. My claim is only that mental phenomena are distinct from, distinguishable from, intersubjectively observable phenomena. There is an intimate relationship between them, but they are not identical. And there is nothing metaphysical about that claim --- it is a primitive observation, and obvious.

[GE Morton]

Those are both the same 'outside world'

You can only escape solipsism and talk about ''us'' if you assume that hypothesised 'outside world' exists and we both have a relationship with it.

Oh, I agree with the latter statement. But those two "outside worlds" are not the same. The "outside world" we think of as "the real world," that we talk about in everyday conversation and that is described by science, is a constructed world, a conceptual model, a theoretical structure we've invented. The other "outside world," Kant's noumenon, is an hypothetical realm postulated as the primordial cause of the phenomena we subjectively experience.

The "real world" of science and common understanding is a model. The noumenon is what that model strives to be a model of. But we can never know how accurate that model is, because to compare two things you have to be able to observe both. And we can't observe the noumenon; all we can know about is what subjective phenomena it --- by hypothesis --- arouses in us.

[Steve3007]

The "real world" of science and common understanding is a model. The noumenon is what that model strives to be a model of. But we can never know how accurate that model is, because to compare two things you have to be able to observe both.

But one thing we tend to do, in order to assess whether the model is an accurate model of this noumenon, is decide that there are certain characteristics that the noumenon must have in order to "make sense" - to be coherent. We then look at the model to see if it has those characteristics. If it doesn't have characteristics which we deem it to need in order to be coherent, some of us then say "OK, forget the noumenon. Just use the model to make predictions of future observations, and don't worry about what it's a model of".

[Gertie]

Those are both the same 'outside world'

You can only escape solipsism and talk about ''us'' if you assume that hypothesised 'outside world' exists and we both have a relationship with it.

Oh, I agree with the latter statement. But those two "outside worlds" are not the same. The "outside world" we think of as "the real world," that we talk about in everyday conversation and that is described by science, is a constructed world, a conceptual model, a theoretical structure we've invented. The other "outside world," Kant's noumenon, is an hypothetical realm postulated as the primordial cause of the phenomena we subjectively experience.

The "real world" of science and common understanding is a model. The noumenon is what that model strives to be a model of. But we can never know how accurate that model is, because to compare two things you have to be able to observe both. And we can't observe the noumenon; all we can know about is what subjective phenomena it --- by hypothesis --- arouses in us.

The point I'm making is, if we assume that hypothetical world is real, then that's what is being modelled. And as soon as you talk about 'we' or 'our experience' you have assumed that hypothetical world exists, is real, and you know something about it (that other people exist and have experience). By comparing notes about the contents of our experience with other people we just add detail to the model of an 'outside world' we share and can inter-subjectively agree on some things we experience in relationship to it.

So the model isn't a different world, it's how we experience the real world. And as soon as you make 'we' claims, including claims about 'our experience', you have assumed a real 'outside-my-experience' world exists.

Hence the need for clarity and consistency on what assumptions underly any claim, and what those assumptions entail. And the need to avoid slipping between underlying assumptions.

Our inter-subjective shared model has its own methods of establishing 'objective' facts, the empirical/scientific method. It is here, within the current model, that the Hard Problem arises, and suggests our model of the real world as we experience it needs re-thinking.

[Atla]

The point I'm making is, if we assume that hypothetical world is real, then that's what is being modelled. And as soon as you talk about 'we' or 'our experience' you have assumed that hypothetical world exists, is real, and you know something about it (that other people exist and have experience). By comparing notes about the contents of our experience with other people we just add detail to the model of an 'outside world' we share and can inter-subjectively agree on some things we experience in relationship to it.

So the model isn't a different world, it's how we experience the real world. And as soon as you make 'we' claims, including claims about 'our experience', you have assumed a real 'outside-my-experience' world exists.

Hence the need for clarity and consistency on what assumptions underly any claim, and what those assumptions entail. And the need to avoid slipping between underlying assumptions.

Our inter-subjective shared model has its own methods of establishing 'objective' facts, the empirical/scientific method. It is here, within the current model, that the Hard Problem arises, and suggests our model of the real world as we experience it needs re-thinking.

As usual I blame Kant, looks like he really thought that it was nonsensical to imbue the noumenon with any reality. So we should get stuck in this weird kind of limbo, where we aren't full-blown solipsists yet, but we also don't relate to the noumenon like it was an actual outside world that's there. Imo a philosophically unjustified, psychologically unnatural/unhealthy state to be in.