Re: Philosophy is useless
Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:29 am
Hello again Notvacka
Ok! Your answer is coherent. I don’t agree with it, but it is a meaningful hypothesis considering the state of out present knowledge. You propose a dualist configuration of mental life. This separates subjectivity from its physical basis. This would suggest that subjectivity might be out of reach of a severe reductionism.
But we are splitting hairs now. You may have a theory of consciousness that insulates it from the circumstances I suggest. But that still does not confront the proposed scenario where science reduces all of consciousness to a strict mechanistic formula. We do not know what consciousness is, and that means that we don’t know where the search for it will end.
You express a belief that consciousness has a certain nature that is separate from any scientifically achievable understanding. But you might be wrong. Many people believe a range of different outcomes is possible, and that range includes simple mechanical models. My issue is that if people take these outcomes seriously, then where is the recognition of the philosophical apocalypse awaiting.
When you say;” It is already perfectly possible to philosophically conclude that there is some physical basis behind consciousness. Determining exactly how it works makes little to no difference in this context.”
If consciousness is found to be an elaborate machine that can be reproduced with synthetic means, then your idea of consciousness is invalidated, because there is no dualistic arrangement to cordon off and protect consciousness from severe reductionism.
How consciousness works is crucial to a host of philosophical questions. I see this as beyond doubt.
Further, I have never come across any arguments that philosophy does not face this situation. I think this is notable, not because I have inventoried all philosophical writing on this subject, but because I think that perhaps this question is being avoided. For instance, I am proposing on a post where the topic is that philosophy is useless, that a significant slice of philosophy faces imminent redundancy. Where are the agitators, haters and masterdebators ?
The corollary of science explaining consciousness, that science may not be able to explain consciousness, has an impact on the topic of this board as well. If science cannot explain consciousness, it will most likely be explained by philosophy, and thus we end up at a speculative argument as to why philosophy may be useful.
In any case, if someone believes that philosophy is useless, it is usually their judgement that science delivers enough answers to make philosophy surplus to requirements. I believe that their argument will be tested by how science performs on the question of consciousness. In a sense science and philosophy are on a collision course that has been laid down by three thousand years of investigative pursuit, and like a comet sighting, we may be lucky enough to witness a decision in our lifetime.
Full disclosure; I do not believe science will claim this prize, because I believe that a different understanding of consciousness will emerge. But this is a discussion board and I think the subject can be usefully bickered about. Hence my persistent cry of; " Hypothetical Wolf !!"
Thanks for the discussion, Mark
Ok! Your answer is coherent. I don’t agree with it, but it is a meaningful hypothesis considering the state of out present knowledge. You propose a dualist configuration of mental life. This separates subjectivity from its physical basis. This would suggest that subjectivity might be out of reach of a severe reductionism.
But we are splitting hairs now. You may have a theory of consciousness that insulates it from the circumstances I suggest. But that still does not confront the proposed scenario where science reduces all of consciousness to a strict mechanistic formula. We do not know what consciousness is, and that means that we don’t know where the search for it will end.
You express a belief that consciousness has a certain nature that is separate from any scientifically achievable understanding. But you might be wrong. Many people believe a range of different outcomes is possible, and that range includes simple mechanical models. My issue is that if people take these outcomes seriously, then where is the recognition of the philosophical apocalypse awaiting.
When you say;” It is already perfectly possible to philosophically conclude that there is some physical basis behind consciousness. Determining exactly how it works makes little to no difference in this context.”
If consciousness is found to be an elaborate machine that can be reproduced with synthetic means, then your idea of consciousness is invalidated, because there is no dualistic arrangement to cordon off and protect consciousness from severe reductionism.
How consciousness works is crucial to a host of philosophical questions. I see this as beyond doubt.
Further, I have never come across any arguments that philosophy does not face this situation. I think this is notable, not because I have inventoried all philosophical writing on this subject, but because I think that perhaps this question is being avoided. For instance, I am proposing on a post where the topic is that philosophy is useless, that a significant slice of philosophy faces imminent redundancy. Where are the agitators, haters and masterdebators ?
The corollary of science explaining consciousness, that science may not be able to explain consciousness, has an impact on the topic of this board as well. If science cannot explain consciousness, it will most likely be explained by philosophy, and thus we end up at a speculative argument as to why philosophy may be useful.
In any case, if someone believes that philosophy is useless, it is usually their judgement that science delivers enough answers to make philosophy surplus to requirements. I believe that their argument will be tested by how science performs on the question of consciousness. In a sense science and philosophy are on a collision course that has been laid down by three thousand years of investigative pursuit, and like a comet sighting, we may be lucky enough to witness a decision in our lifetime.
Full disclosure; I do not believe science will claim this prize, because I believe that a different understanding of consciousness will emerge. But this is a discussion board and I think the subject can be usefully bickered about. Hence my persistent cry of; " Hypothetical Wolf !!"
Thanks for the discussion, Mark