Philosophy Discussion Forums

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 4:51 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 5th, 2020, 1:44 pm
No. It is a transformation of a reference frame, or of some 3D object within that frame (which operations are equivalent). The apparent properties of the thing --- what is visible from a given viewpoint --- will change accordingly. But the properties of the thing(s) viewed don't change.

This is something else we need to clear up that you keep repeating. Apparent properties are properties, aren't they?

Yes, they are properties of our percept. But not of the thing perceived. A photograph of a tiger has its own properties --- 8x10 inches, 1/64 in thick, black and white, slightly out-of-focus, etc. --- but those are not properties of the tiger.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:33 pm No, some correlations turn out to be causal . . .

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 2:21 pm You appear to be denying what I said, but you're not. Some correlations are also cause/effect relations. They don't "turn out" to be those; they are those all along. What turns out is our discovery of that relationship.

Hindsight works in a very specific way. First you prove something. Then you can proceed on the basis that it's proven. There's a strict chronological sequence here.

GE Morton wrote:Yes, and it's an important point. However, some correlations are causation. Keep in mind that events in every causal sequence are also correlated. We can consider A to be the cause of B if B always follows A (ceteris paribus). But if B only correlates with A 70% of the time, we can't draw that conclusion.

Pattern-chaser wrote:I don't think we can, but maybe I just don't understand the details of the statistics that describe such things. Perhaps A always follows B because C, the actual cause, causes B to happen first, followed by A?

I think when we talk about inferring cause from observed instances of correlation we have to be clearer than this about exactly what we mean by statements made as a result of empirical observations such as "B always follows A" or "B follows A X% of the time".

1st point: B following A can only be observed to happen a finite number of times. So "B always follows A" is an inductive generalisation. i.e. we go from an observation of the finite to a statement about the infinite (or arbitrarily large). As such, it's not a proposition that can ever be directly observed to be true.

2nd point: B following A leads us to infer a causal relationship between A and B but that doesn't necessarily mean that A causes B. They could both be caused by C.

3rd point: It isn't the case that "B always follows A" implies cause and "B follows A X% of the time (X<100)" doesn't. It's not all-or-nothing like that. If it were, then point 1 would mean that we never infer cause. In reality we say that the higher the value of that X% the more likely we think there is to be a causal connection. If we see an instance of A without a following B, we don't necessarily break the causal connection, unless we're specifically talking about an idealised (non-real) observational situation in which we're 100% certain that A happened, that B didn't happen, that A and B are precisely the same events as they were for the previous observations and that there are no other events in the system that are not visible to us. Being ideal, that situation never happens in reality. Possibly the "ceteris paribus" was intended to cover that.

Ignore point 2. Already covered. My bad.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 10:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 4:51 pm

This is something else we need to clear up that you keep repeating. Apparent properties are properties, aren't they?

Yes, they are properties of our percept. But not of the thing perceived. A photograph of a tiger has its own properties --- 8x10 inches, 1/64 in thick, black and white, slightly out-of-focus, etc. --- but those are not properties of the tiger.

Sure. And you're claiming that algorithms can provide a "transformation" of these properties, right?

Are you claiming that the algorithm does this without having any correlation to the properties in question?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 12:52 pm
Are you claiming that the algorithm does this without having any correlation to the properties in question?

Yes. The algorithm is indifferent to the properties transformed. It will transform whatever apparent properties are within the frame.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 1:43 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 12:52 pm
Are you claiming that the algorithm does this without having any correlation to the properties in question?

Yes. The algorithm is indifferent to the properties transformed. It will transform whatever apparent properties are within the frame.

What frame are we talking about exactly?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 2:04 pm
What frame are we talking about exactly?

This sidetrack, and your tedious off-the-wall questions, are tiresome and pointless. I explained the difference between an apparent difference due to perspective and a real difference, quite clearly, I think. I'm done with it.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 9:38 am

GE Morton wrote:Yes, and it's an important point. However, some correlations are causation. Keep in mind that events in every causal sequence are also correlated. We can consider A to be the cause of B if B always follows A (ceteris paribus). But if B only correlates with A 70% of the time, we can't draw that conclusion.

Pattern-chaser wrote:I don't think we can, but maybe I just don't understand the details of the statistics that describe such things. Perhaps A always follows B because C, the actual cause, causes B to happen first, followed by A?

I think when we talk about inferring cause from observed instances of correlation we have to be clearer than this about exactly what we mean by statements made as a result of empirical observations such as "B always follows A" or "B follows A X% of the time".

1st point: B following A can only be observed to happen a finite number of times. So "B always follows A" is an inductive generalisation. i.e. we go from an observation of the finite to a statement about the infinite (or arbitrarily large). As such, it's not a proposition that can ever be directly observed to be true.

I agree. "B always follows A" needs to be understood with the qualifier, "Within our experience." We then make a prediction that B will follow A in the future, and as long as that prediction is confirmed we stick with our causal analysis. Propositions asserting causal relations are always inductive, though there is a way to render them "sort of" deductive, to supply Hume's "necessary connexion."

3rd point: It isn't the case that "B always follows A" implies cause and "B follows A X% of the time (X<100)" doesn't. It's not all-or-nothing like that. If it were, then point 1 would mean that we never infer cause. In reality we say that the higher the value of that X% the more likely we think there is to be a causal connection. If we see an instance of A without a following B, we don't necessarily break the causal connection, unless we're specifically talking about an idealised (non-real) observational situation in which we're 100% certain that A happened, that B didn't happen, that A and B are precisely the same events as they were for the previous observations and that there are no other events in the system that are not visible to us. Being ideal, that situation never happens in reality. Possibly the "ceteris paribus" was intended to cover that.

Yes, it was.

GE Morton wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 6:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 8th, 2020, 2:04 pm
What frame are we talking about exactly?

This sidetrack, and your tedious off-the-wall questions, are tiresome and pointless. I explained the difference between an apparent difference due to perspective and a real difference, quite clearly, I think. I'm done with it.

Quelle surprise. Your view(s) doesn't at all stand up to scrutiny once we get down to brass tacks and examine what you're claiming in its details. But you're not about to participate very far into that.

Gertie wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:05 pm It's not an ideology to ask for an explanation.

But it is an ideology to ignore an explanation when it is given.

Gertie wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:05 pm You of course can choose to ignore anything not obviously explicable by science, but there's no reason philosophy should.

What I will ignore is bad philosophy which decides to re-invent the rules for what counts as a scientific explanation without giving good reasons for doing so.

A scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon is one that describes what physically happens and why, tracing casual connections in a system from beginning to end. Then it is done. So a scientific explanation of a mental state will be one which traces all the causal pathways from brain events to the motor events subjects use to describe what their experiences are like. That's it.

If this sort of thing does not satisfy some philosophers, they are free to holler that science can’t explain consciousness, and scientists are best advised to just ignore them and keep doing their jobs following the norms and practices they are accustomed to.

I'm aware that you believe this would just be turning our backs on a very real and difficult problem. I don't see it that way, obviously. I see it as us turning our backs on a community of very smart people who have deluded themselves about the nature of consciousness and who are not producing works or ideas I find even remotely compelling or interesting. If you find value in this sort of thing, good for you. I'm on a different path.

Gertie wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:05 pm What our current scientific understanding wouldn't predict is how and why experience correlates with certain physical processes at all.

That explanation has already been achieved. For purely ideological reasons, it is not acceptable to some philosophers.

I am satisfied that the Global Neuronal Workspace model (or an evolved version of it as time goes on) is the only explanation one could ever have or expect to explain how brain states are mental states. If this model doesn’t scratch an itch that some philosophers have, this is their problem, not my problem, and certainly not a problem for the science of consciousness.

Yep and that's just the way things are. This is the folly of dualistic Western philosophy, and of science trying to do philosophy. Among many others, we have phenomenologists like Heidegger, qualia/consciousness eliminativists like Dennett, all kinds of dual-aspect believers like Chalmers, and not a single one of them actually knows what they are talking about.
And this is nearly 100 years after dualistic philosophy was refuted by science.

So some of us have been trying to answer the question, how it is possible that so many people could be so dense for so long? Seems like quite a mistery. Though it seems to me that an absurd hegemony of dualistic thinking in Western philosophy, an ancient tradition, is more to blame, than an absurd hegemony of science.

Atla wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 12:46 pm Yep and that's just the way things are. This is the folly of dualistic Western philosophy, and of science trying to do philosophy. Among many others, we have phenomenologists like Heidegger, qualia/consciousness eliminativists like Dennett, all kinds of dual-aspect believers like Chalmers, and not a single one of them actually knows what they are talking about.
And this is nearly 100 years after dualistic philosophy was refuted by science.

"Refuted"? Really? Where, when, how and by whom?

...and is this mind-body dualism, or some other similar perspective?

A scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon is one that describes what physically happens and why, tracing casual connections in a system from beginning to end. Then it is done. So a scientific explanation of a mental state will be one which traces all the causal pathways from brain events to the motor events subjects use to describe what their experiences are like. That's it.

Yes we see it differently. As I said, the current physicalist scientific model of what the world is made of and how it works has no place for experience. So if we agree experience exists, that means the model is incomplete. I think most would agree we don't know everything, but there is a particular problem re experience, in that it's not third person observable or measurable, which the basic toolkit of science relies on. Hence we can't even identify a path to getting an answer to the basic 'how' and 'why' questions, or testing hypotheses. Hence 'The Hard Problem'. To simply ignore things which don't fit our current model isn't scientific, or science could never progress.

If this sort of thing does not satisfy some philosophers, they are free to holler that science can’t explain consciousness, and scientists are best advised to just ignore them and keep doing their jobs following the norms and practices they are accustomed to.

There are neuroscientists like Koch trying to get a handle on how we might find ways of approaching the Hard Problem in a scientific, measurable way. Maybe that will get somewhere. It seems to be leading IIT towards panpsychism interestingly.

I'm aware that you believe this would just be turning our backs on a very real and difficult problem. I don't see it that way, obviously. I see it as us turning our backs on a community of very smart people who have deluded themselves about the nature of consciousness and who are not producing works or ideas I find even remotely compelling or interesting. If you find value in this sort of thing, good for you. I'm on a different path.

If you don't have an answer to the question of the nature of consciousness, on what basis do you get to decide what suggestions are deluded?

Gertie wrote: ↑
October 7th, 2020, 1:05 pm
What our current scientific understanding wouldn't predict is how and why experience correlates with certain physical processes at all.

That explanation has already been achieved. For purely ideological reasons, it is not acceptable to some philosophers.

I am satisfied that the Global Neuronal Workspace model (or an evolved version of it as time goes on) is the only explanation one could ever have or expect to explain how brain states are mental states. If this model doesn’t scratch an itch that some philosophers have, this is their problem, not my problem, and certainly not a problem for the science of consciousness.

Yet you claim to know (some) brain states are experiential states based on correlation. Something we're not in a position to know. It's a hypothesis which requires backing up, because it's only one of several whole cloth hypotheses, and requires an explanation as to how the same identical thing can simultaneously have contradictory properties.

Atla wrote:
Yep and that's just the way things are. This is the folly of dualistic Western philosophy, and of science trying to do philosophy. Among many others, we have phenomenologists like Heidegger, qualia/consciousness eliminativists like Dennett, all kinds of dual-aspect believers like Chalmers, and not a single one of them actually knows what they are talking about.
And this is nearly 100 years after dualistic philosophy was refuted by science.

A bold statement. I would like to know how it is that "phenomnologists like Heidegger" don't know what their talking about.