The Category Error of Scientism

[Neo-Scholastic]

So let me get this straight... our linguistic limitations and current lack of a robust theory of consciousness...means God dune it?

Neither of which reflects anything I said.

---

Most of what you said is somewhat confused from not reading the entirety of my post in context.

My apologies. I will try to read more thoroughly.

... there are in fact non-reductionist physicalist theories of mind in philosophy of mind.

I think computationalists fall into that category. So I guess you are right, and I am wrong, on this point. My position is a bit like that of the atheist trying to refute the specific claims of every different Protestant denomination.

Thermodynamics is an emergent system that cannot, for example, be reduced to quantum mechanics.

Could be. I haven't given much thought to that specific example. Let me stew on that on a bit.

[MindForgedManacle]

My apologies. I will try to read more thoroughly.

Hey, no problem man. You weren't like way off base, just on some nuance here anxd there. I probably did the same to you.

I think computationalists fall into that category. So I guess you are right, and I am wrong, on this point. My position is a bit like that of the atheist trying to refute the specific claims of every different Protestant denomination.

Hey, the resemblance is certainly there. :p But it's useful for the relevant ones. But as with the Protestant denominations comparison, the problem is with overgeneralizing.

Could be. I haven't given much thought to that specific example. Let me stew on that on a bit.

I'm likely wrong here. I've had doubts ever since I typed it.

[Odysseus]

I'm sorry, but the article you site is referring to a long-since discredited hypothesis whose opposing evidence is too massive to take it (Orch-OR) seriously.

Did you read the date? I have not read the paper in full as of yet, but quantum processes were measured recently thus the update on Penrose's original theory. Integrated information theory might help develop the concept further especially since this seems to physically explain a portion of the mechanism by which brain regions that separated in can generate a totality of experience collectively

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm sorry, but the article you site is referring to a long-since discredited hypothesis whose opposing evidence is too massive to take it (Orch-OR) seriously.

Did you read the date? I have not read the paper in full as of yet, but quantum processes were measured recently thus the update on Penrose's original theory. Integrated information theory might help develop the concept further especially since this seems to physically explain a portion of the mechanism by which brain regions that separated in can generate a totality of experience collectively

You should be aware that quantum brain processes would generally solve the interaction problem of dualism. IMHO that is why materialism advocates work so hard to find reasons to reject them.

Also I see no incompatibility of information theory with dualist theories of mind although I have only a cursory understanding of information theory.

[MindForgedManacle]

Did you read the date? I have not read the paper in full as of yet, but quantum processes were measured recently thus the update on Penrose's original theory. Integrated information theory might help develop the concept further especially since this seems to physically explain a portion of the mechanism by which brain regions that separated in can generate a totality of experience collectively

Yes I read the date, and I've now finished reading the paper. Penrose's and Hameroff's hypothesis still appears susceptible to many critiques it faced back when the first proposed it... when I was born. The only particularly notable skeptical critique they seemed to have potentially evaded is Tegmark's criticism that the brain is too warm. It is still weak because Hameroff still posits a poor and KNOWN to be incorrect model of the brain, and various other parts of Orch OR have been definitively falsified.

A sizable portion of the paper consists of Penrose and Hamerroff claiming to respond to critics, and that "the evidence definitely supports Orch OR now", claims they fail to make a compelling case for at all. This sentiment seems to be effectively mirrored by everyone in the relevant disciplines, from physics to philosophy, which prima facie gives me even less reason to think Penrose and Hameroff are really on to something rather than trying to push their flawed pat theory of consciousness fervently.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Penrose and Hameroff are [not] really on to something rather than trying to push their flawed pat theory of consciousness fervently.

As I mentioned earlier, the Penrose-Hammeroff theory is not the only game in town. Here is a link to just a few current theories, including Orch OR:

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/human-brain/c...n-and-mind

I do not advocate any particular model, but I do believe 19th century physics is incapable of providing space for the two most obvious features of reality: physical being and our experience of it.

[MindForgedManacle]

I don't think Penrose and Hameroff are the only game in town. If a theory of consciousness is compelling, I'd like to think I'd be open to accepting it.

[Odysseus]

Ah, fair enough, my point was not that orchor was correct or that it was a mechanism for consciousness though or even that portions of it might be applicable to a future theory of consciousness simply that eeg arising from microtubule function may well be an example of emergence in the brain. Another being how in societies with markets and religion the moral response of individuals shifts toward punishment of members of the group who violate ethical standards and rewarding those who are cooperative. The same can be seen in ant megacolonies and simulations of ethical behavior in agent models.

[Angrboda]

Punctuation is your friend. But apparently grammar is only a distant cousin.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Chad,

Ok buddy, I'm here. Explain to me the necessity of this "non-physical stuff", and why you think it must exist. Start with any example of reality that I may perceive, and then point out what I must acknowledge to be incomplete with a Monist vie w of experience. All I see are physical forms of existence. There is only physical existence. I do not believe that there is any additional substance that must be invoked here.

Non-physical stuff is that which gives form to primal matter. Primal matter is the formless ground of being.

What does that mean? and is my camera example exempt from this necessity?