Occams Hatchet and Is Materialism "Special"

[The Grand Nudger]

What it's -made- out of isn't.  Would you like to pick up that banner though, and continue the brilliant objection to materialism, of the existence of music? I sincerely hope not.

-and so what, so what if there's "more" to music, will that rescue the objection? No...because unless some of that "more" is immaterial, it would be irrelevant. Care to identify the immaterial component? OFC not. This is what I mean, when I air my suspicions that we never really approach a deep conversation of these topics, in these threads. These sorts of statements...even if true, do nothing to modify or rule out the positions to which they are invariably applied. To respond to an explanation fo what music is made out of, vis a vis the relevance of the materialist position...with "well, there;s more -to- music than that" is to massively shift the goalposts and begin bitching about something else entirely...and materialists don't even disagree with you here, in this, anyway. I think there's more to music than sound as well......so what?

[bennyboy]

In theory you can, but when you have to carefully trace a trillion connections, you are likely to reach the end of the universe before you can process say what it's like to listen to a good song.

That seems like an exaggeration.  No one said it was easy, or could be done in a jiffy, ofc.

No, but you seem to strongly feel that it's even theoretically possible. I'll state it flat out-- you can symbolize complex processes with formulae, but you can never, EVER, encapsulate all the interactions of even a simple system.

[quote  That's kind of the problem, atpresent.  It wouldn;t be easy to do if it were a pc that no one gave a shit about.....but it;s not, it;s a living human beings brain we;d need to jack around with.  The failures of our current theories of mind are not, primarily, philosophical.  They withstand the test of rational scrutiny, which is the test you would apply.  They;re sufficient.  Whether or not they are accurate is another question entirely.  Might not be.  

-and knowing all of that...and seeing what the primitive shit we have for computational architectures can do, you don't think that this is, at least, a candidate for an accounting of our experience?  It's all just assumptions?  No observations, no conclusions, no knowledge, no real science?  

If I'm studying brain and behavior, I'm doing science. If I'm studying brain and subjective experience, I'm doing science-- but with the physical correlates, not the actual experience itself, to which we have no direct observational access.

I doubt that we'll ever know anything to the zero point of accuracy, scientifically or otherwise....this is hardly a criticism of any specific position.  Again, it seems to me, that your issue is not with materialism even as it relates to mind, but with knowledge itself.

My issue is with the conflation of assertion with assumption. You can do science around the mind-- correlate reported feelings with brain function, or see what neurons light up when someone does a certain activity. That's all super-useful and interesting. But identifying and enumerating functional details is not equivalent to understanding whether/how/why system in the universe CAN experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, but you seem to strongly feel that it's even theoretically possible.

Because it is, by definition, as a computational architecture.  Isolating it's components will inexorably yield it's functions.  That's how the systems -work- too. If you couldn't do this theoretically possible thing, the computational architecture would be incapable of computation.

I'll state it flat out-- you can symbolize complex processes with formulae, but you can never, EVER, encapsulate all the interactions of even a simple system.

You can never encapsulate them all from a materialist paradigm, from an idealist paradigm, or from either?  Because if it's the latter, it's not relevant, and no objection to materialism, even as it relates to mind.

-and knowing all of that...and seeing what the primitive shit we have for computational architectures can do, you don't think that this is, at least, a candidate for an accounting of our experience?  It's all just assumptions?  No observations, no conclusions, no knowledge, no real science?  

If I'm studying brain and behavior, I'm doing science.  If I'm studying brain and subjective experience, I'm doing science-- but with the physical correlates, not the actual experience itself, to which we have no direct observational access.

So it's science right up and to the point where it begins to be impossible for you to maintain your objections, then..it ceases to be science.  How convenient.  

My issue is with the conflation of assertion with assumption.  You can do science around the mind-- correlate reported feelings with brain function, or see what neurons light up when someone does a certain activity.  That's all super-useful and interesting.  But identifying and enumerating functional details is not equivalent to understanding whether/how/why system in the universe CAN experience.

-and finding no traction elsewhere, we pivot back round to this. Sorry, our best evidence isn't an assumption, it's a collection of observations all telling us the same thing. Brain accounts for what we know of mind. For what we don't know of mind, brain is a rational inference based upon sound propositions, and valid argumentation. It has helped, ofc, that we've come around to this new notion of mind with science as our proposition generating tool, rather than superstition or the endless babble of the last thousand years worth of believers in strange shit a, b, or c.

[bennyboy]

What it's -made- out of isn't.  Would you like to pick up that banner though, and continue the brilliant objection to materialism, of the existence of music?  I sincerely hope not.

It's the same old song and dance.  I say music is made up of ideas, which represent the mental experiences and feelings of a subjective agent, and that all the physical apparatus, including the brain, is a carrier for the ideas.  You'll say there's no such thing as an idea without a material system which makes it.

It's easy to see that different brains have different ideas.  The reason is clear enough- different people have different experiences of life which inform their ideas.  It's also easy to see that one brain has different ideas at different times.  That's because the environment is dynamic.

Some ideas are ingrained in us via instinct.  It's likely that those ones precede conscious awareness.

The point is that ideas are all imprinted on the brain from its relation to outside sources.  i.e. the brain is a carrier for ideas, which may therefore interact on that medium, rather than a machine capable of creating ideas ex nihilo. This is why ideas can be said to be medium-independent, and that they therefore have an existence in their own right: the same ideas may be imprinted on a variety of mechanisms-- something with which you would strongly agree, I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

What it's -made- out of isn't.  Would you like to pick up that banner though, and continue the brilliant objection to materialism, of the existence of music?  I sincerely hope not.

It's the same old song and dance.  I say music is made up of ideas,

-which is fine..but I;ll be able to quantify sound, and "it's made of ideas" is as far as you have or ever will..get. 

which represent the mental experiences and feelings of a subjective agent, and that all the physical apparatus, including the brain, is a carrier for the ideas.  You'll say there's no such thing as an idea without a material system which makes it.

Is music music if no one is there to hear it.  If I put an mp3 player in the desert, and no human being, indeed no "subjective agent" -whatsoever...no brain, no mental experiences or feelings are present or occur...is the sound emanating therefrom suddenly not music, suddenly not bach?  OFC it's still music, still bach, and this is why your criteria for what music is made out of fail on their very own terms.  Music, as asked and in this discussion, is nowhere near inexpicable or unaccountable by a materialist description. You are trying to bundle things you -think- materialism can't account for into a fairly mundane subject.

It's easy to see that different brains have different ideas.  The reason is clear enough- different people have different experiences of life which inform their ideas.  It's also easy to see that one brain has different ideas at different times.  That's because the environment is dynamic.

Some ideas are ingrained in us via instinct.  It's likely that those ones precede conscious awareness.

Propose a mechanism at any point, in all of this. How do ideas idea ideas to ideas?

The point is that ideas are all imprinted on the brain from its relation to outside sources.  i.e. the brain is a carrier for ideas, which may therefore interact on that medium, rather than a machine capable of creating ideas ex nihilo.  This is why ideas can be said to be medium-independent, and that they therefore have an existence in their own right: the same ideas may be imprinted on a variety of mechanisms-- something with which you would strongly agree, I think.

You understand that you're describing a computational "idea architecture". Since we can't find any of these free floating ideas...since we can't seem to dig up evidence that the world is, indeed "made of ideas"...since we both agree to some sort of computation...since material computation does demonstrably exist....and since we demonstrably have demonstrably material brains with demonstrable computational ability, I'm confident discarding your suggestion on the basis of parsimony alone.

You have stolen the entire material concept, added an un-evidenced variable you call (but fail to describe in any meaningful way) "ideas", and then proceeded to argue against the very framework upon which your stolen concept depends. You'll need to make up your mind. If idea interactions are capable of producing some sort of computational mind then so to are material interactions capable of producing some sort of computational mind. If material computation -could not- produce a mind...than neither could "idea computation". -They;re the same damned thing, you're just referencing a proposed medium -for- computation. Well, we don;t need you to propose one. One exists. Every single -bit- of data on a computer (as in, the machine kind) comes from it's environment as well, what's this ex nihilo shit..the next bale of straw you'll expect someone to schlep out of your way?

[bennyboy]

No, but you seem to strongly feel that it's even theoretically possible.

Because it is, by definition, as a computational arhitecture.  Isolating it's components will inexorably yield it's functions.  That's how the systems -work- too.

Okay, you isolate the quintillions (or whatever) of QM particles, and trace how their interactions arrive at a sequence of ideas over the course of say 1/20 of a second. I look forward to either your answer, or to the end of the universe, whichever will come first.

You can never encapsulate them all from a materialist paradigm, from an idealist paradigm, or from either?  Because if it's the latter, it's not relevant, and no objection to materialism, even as it relates to mind.

As I said, materialism or physicalism as an idea is subsumed by idealism as an idea.

So it's science right up and to the point where it begins to be impossible for you to maintain your objections, then..it ceases to be science.  How convenient.  [/;quote]]
It's science right up to the point that you conflate assumptions and assertions.

[quote]
-and finding no traction elsewhere, we pivot back round to this.  Sorry, our best evidence isn't an assumption, it's a collection of observations all telling us the same thing.  Brain accounts for what we know of mind.  For what we don't know of mind, brain is a rational inference based upon  sound propositions, and valid argumentation.

Lots of words, no actual support. As I said, if you're such a champion of science, bring some actual science. Otherwise, it will be apparent that your "rational inference based upon sound propositions" is an arbitrary philosophical position.

Want to REALLY get on the merry-go-round? Google something like "scientific definition of qualia."

--edit--
. . . or we can start here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/qualia/

But I'm guessing you'll stick to the "I'm sure I'm right, science something, evidence something" with some hand-waving toward the brain, as though that's an explanation of something.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it is, by definition, as a computational arhitecture.  Isolating it's components will inexorably yield it's functions.  That's how the systems -work- too.

Okay, you isolate the quintillions (or whatever) of QM particles, and trace how their interactions arrive at a sequence of ideas over the course of say 1/20 of a second.  I look forward to either your answer, or to the end of the universe, whichever will come first.

There go those goalposts.  Were discussing the isolation of a computational function.  I do not -need- to dive down to the qm level to do that.  I don;t even need a microscope. I can do it with a string of christmas lights, some copper wire, a soldering iron..and a car battery.......and no, I'm not even kidding.

As I said, materialism or physicalism as an idea is subsumed by idealism as an idea.

Which is how you rationalize a standard logical fallacy.  There's nothing more that needs be or can be said about this.

Lots of words, no actual support.  As I said, if you're such a champion of science, bring some actual science.  Otherwise, it will be apparent that your "arional inference based upon sound propositions" is an arbitrary philosophical position.

I have no interest in trolling myself, or indulging you in trolling me.  We've already had this discussion...you know that the science exists...you object to it. You -know- that it isn't an arbitrary philosophical position. You need it to be, to continue arguing, is all.

[bennyboy]

There go those goalposts.  Were discussing the isolation of a computational function.  I do not -need- to dive down to the qm level to do that.  I don;t even need a microscope.  I can do it with a string of christmas lights, some copper wire, a soldering iron..and a car battery.......and no, I'm not even kidding.

So what you're saying is that what is true in one context does NOT need to be derived from the context on which it supervenes? That's a fantastic idea, I wish I had thought of it! Oh, wait. . .

Which is how you rationalize a standard logical fallacy.  There's nothing more that needs be or can be said about this.

You keep throwing keywords without actually being able to explain anything. Your fallacy fallacy is due noted.

I have no interest in trolling myself, or indulging you in trolling me.  We've already had this discussion...you know that the science exists...you object to it.  You -know- that it isn't an arbitrary philosophical position.  You need it to be, to continue arguing, is all.

I've never said science doesn't exist. I'm saying it doesn't study what you say it studies, and can't.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what you're saying is that what is true in one context does NOT need to be derived from the context on which it supervenes?  That's a fantastic idea, I wish I had thought of it!  Oh, wait. . .

Is that what you got, from what I said? 

You keep throwing keywords without actually being able to explain anything.  Your fallacy fallacy is due noted.

I'd be an asshole of a buddy if I blew smoke up your ass, and just let you keep going on and on without telling you where you ran off the tracks.  

I've never said science doesn't exist.  I'm saying it doesn't study what you say it studies, and can't.

-The- science, don't do it, don't go full on troll.  This, like so many other things before it, you know damned well.  You know it exists, you call it non-science.  You -repeatedly- call it non science.  You're doing it right now.  Own it. I;m not sure that you;'re qualified to tell me what science can and can't study. That seems like a grand claim. Meanwhile, it sure as hell looks like we can study it, and it's producing some awfully interesting results what with being pure accident and all.

What's the end game here, though, have you thought this through? If science -cant- study this, if none of what we have is a science of this..what can, what is? Is it knowable? What is known about it? By what means? I don't mind scrapping all of the "non-science", let's start over. From the bottom. We know nothing, the science is wrong (because it can't even study whatever it is we're talking about). The floor is yours.

[bennyboy]

-The- science, don't do it, don't go full on troll.  This, like so many other things before it, you know damned well.  You know it exists, you call it non-science.  You -repeatedly- call it non science.  You're doing it right now.  Own it.  I;m not sure that you;'re qualified to tell me what science can and can't study.   That seems like a grand claim.  Meanwhile, it sure as hell looks like we can study it, and it's producing some awfully interesting results what with being pure accident and all.

I can keep repeating myself. It's a fun game to play, my 4 year-old son seems to like it.

I'm not against science. I'm not against science of brain, or behavioral science. What I am against is the conflation of assumption with assertion. Upon taking the philosophical position that all is material, it's not surprising that you'd wave toward the brain, or that you'd call it material, or that you'd think anything in our experience must be explained in material terms.

Even that's fine. However, in your insistence that all things are material, you are stuck with the problem of mind. It cannot be physically measured, nor inferred from any physical properties of any system unless you already believe those things to have mind. Given that 100% of things we think we know, or perceive, or interact with in any way, are done so only through the agency of subjective minds, that's a pretty big assumption.

In essence, you are using your subjective agency to infer its own nature. I'm pretty sure obvious circular logic is not one of the tenets of good scientific procedure. So if you want to claim that in arguing against you, I'm against science, then please be so kind as to demonstrate that your position represents scientific views, and mind does not.