RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2014 at 10:33 am by Cato.)
(May 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I know a cat that begs to differ 50% of the time.Are you confusing a thought experiment designed to explain how QM works with an actual macroscopic event?
(May 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Moreover QM solves the binding problem of dualist theories. From both a philosophical and scientific perspective, interactive dualism is the better theory. Just because you don't like the implications doesn't give you grounds for dismissing it.
How does QM solve the binding problem? Again, nobody can use QM to fully explain an electron pair but some want to jump straight to solving the problem of consciousness.
I have no problem with the implications of dualism. I have a problem with the lack of evidence for dualism and the fact that all dualist explanations make the system more complicated. We don't need an out of body mind to explain what we observe. Could there be? Who knows at this point, but evidence suggests no and I don't have to take it seriously until evidence is produced to suggest I should. A few loud adherents is not evidence.
(May 16, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: But how could one in principle even test for consciousness in an entity that has no means of communication with us? Even in the case of the entity that could communicate with us, such as a computer in the Turing test, some would still raise philosophical difficulties with actually being able to determine the nature of its "experience", one example being the "problem of other minds."
Your going to have to explain why this is relevant. We only observe consciousness in a narrow description of existents. Assuming that non-living existents could have consciousness because we can't develop a test for something that is outside our experience is getting close to "what if D-O-G really spelled cat". I think we should figure out how the consciousness we can observe works before trying to determine what tickles a rock.
(May 18, 2014 at 4:31 am)bennyboy Wrote: That sounds great until you realize that you are talking about a standard of evidence which requires everything being defined in terms that fit into the theory you are supposedly using the evidence to investigate. That's exactly the definition of "begging the question."
Again, the fact that some things are not well-suited to be obects of scientific study is not their failure. The instistence that they be redefined to "fit in," however, is a failure-- to accept reality. There's irony there, because science is supposed to be a tool for objective inquiry-- not the imposition of philsophical beliefs on direct observgation.
It would have been easier to type "I have no evidence". You are free to believe in ghosts if you wish, but until you provide a compelling reason for the rest of us to do so we really don't have to take any of this seriously. You can't just wave your hands and eliminate the need for evidence by stating that we are imposing philosophy on observation. Where's the evidence?
