(January 18, 2022 at 11:36 am)polymath257 Wrote: I think that this is a pretty good example. The mechanism for TCM is fairly detailed. And *if* it was shown to work in multiple controlled trials, then it would be something that we would need to investigate further.
The problem is describing exactly what a 'mechanism' is. Ultimately, it is a description of the situation in terms of more fundamental items interacting. But what if there *is* no 'more fundamental level'? Then there can be no mechanism and *all* we have is correlation.
Hence, mechanisms only apply above the most fundamental level. We can talk about the mechanism of viral attachment in terms of polarity of amino acids in various proteins *because* we have proteins made of amino acids. We can talk about a mechanism for the properties of those amino acids because we know about atoms and bonding and how that affects electron distribution. We can talk about a mechanism for that because we have a descriptive theory, QM that allows us to calculate what those electron distributions will be.
But there *is no* mechanism for why electrons interact with each other the way they do. Electrons, as far as we know, are fundamental particles. The way they interact is simply part of what it means to be an electron. And that includes the fact that they are always associated with an electric field (that is a description of their interactions).
As another example, temperature is 'explained' by the kinetic energy of the molecules in a thing. if we ask for a 'mechanism', we will get into trouble, though. There is no 'mechanism' linking motion of molecules and temperature. Instead, the temperature *is* the motion of those molecules. And, from that description, we can derive the various properties of temperature.
In the case of consciousness, we can describe neural activities in this hierarchical structure, but to 'explain' consciousness may simply mean we say 'whenever the neurons do this, the person experiences that'. In a sense, the 'conscious state' *is* the behavior of those neurons. And, if we can derive all conscious experiences, using a translation table' (just like with temperature), that would *be* the explanation of the conscious states.
Furthermore, there is nothing unusual about consciousness in this. Every new phenomenon is going to be similar. For example, electric current is described as the motion of electrons. But now, what is the mechanism of electrons being charged? There is no such mechanism. What is the mechanism for an electric field producing a force on electrons? Well, we can describe it in terms of interactions between electrons and photons. But what is the actual mechanism for that interaction? There is none. They simply interact in certain ways and that is the end of it. And we know about that interact by the correlations (not the causes) that we measure.
Yes, I agree there are plenty of theories without workable mechanisms and that's why I said that mechanisms can't validate theories but can be helpful in developing experiments to test theories. I love the analogy of how the Higgs Boson creates mass, that they group together in the Higgs field and slow it down. Its not really a mechanism, or is it? I'm not really sure but it certainly helps me to understand the concept.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller
