What's the point of philosophy any more?

[vulcanlogician]

I find it interesting that we call it philosophy until we figure out a way to actually test an idea. After that, we call it science. The first is speculation and the second is knowledge.

This is not to say that speculation isn't a useful thing: it most definitely is. But it isn't knowledge.

Philosophy is more than just speculation. Not everything can be empirically verified. Just as philosophy has its limitations, so do the sciences.

[Whateverist]

It is interesting to wonder whether there is a way that it feels to be an X for any organism X whatsoever.  Being able to express what it feels like to be an X as propositions is entirely a different question, of course.  Framing propositions is something (just?) we do to capture and communicate what we are feeling.  But there is a way it feels to be thirsty, to be lost, to recognize from facial expressions how another feels, and so on.

What gives rise to these subjective states?  Why do our brains bother with adding a 'flavor' to so many functions?  Is it because of our capacity for consciously weighing alternative interpretations and actions?  Perhaps the need to form abstractions to represent alternatives for the sake of consciously choosing between them makes our subjective experience distinctive.  Most of us know what it is like to operate more spontaneously, being in-the-moment, as when immersed in a task for which our expertise allows us to just flow.  Maybe my dogs spend more time in flow (lucky bastards) so that, while there is still a way that if feels to be a dog, what that is would never become a subject of wonder or speculation for them.  

We are probably the only organism on this planet to question how/why the brain adds flavor to experience.  The rest of them experience it but don't or can't isolate it as something apart from what motivates what they are doing.  The motivation they experience and the response it engenders may be something we can hypothesize about but is probably not something they themselves can reflect on.  Abstraction and deliberate, strategic planning may be something we alone engage in and our doing so allows us to isolate experiences as subjects which an animal in flow need not be aware of.  There are probably both advantages and disadvantages to that.

Maybe the important question isn't why experience has a flavor, but rather why is this one organism (us) trying so hard to understand what its flavor is, why it arises and why it even interests us?  Is there anything to be gained?

Well, the 'feel' seems to be a combination of the information and the emotional response to that information. The emotional response is the 'flavor'. And it seems pretty clear why the flavor was added from an evolutionary viewpoint: in makes it easier to remember and recall. It also makes it easier to act on in emergencies.

Do you question whether your dog is conscious? Isn't it clear?

Yes abundantly clear and I suspect that it is a common thing way down line toward animals far simpler than my dogs.  But it isn't clear whether any of the others (with the possible exception of some apes, whales and maybe elephants) engage in the conscious weighing of alternatives in the abstract manner we do it, incorporating a concept of time and making use of language.  I assume by information you are referring to memory and making links from past experience to current circumstances which I assume happens for all animals possessed of even a rudimentary for processing sensory input, even though for most may amount to little more than a preconscious stimulus/response capacity which they lack the capacity to step beyond.

But yes the emotional response and feeling is the flavor, and appeals to our existence as a complex set of chemical actions as opposed to our existence as information processors.  Since we come to the hard question of consciousness from the information processing direction it is important to bear in mind that there is more to what we are and do than that.  Our chemical existence may well inform emotion and go toward explaining things like compulsion and fight/flight response as well as being the secret sauce of happiness, something no idea can replace.

[The Grand Nudger]

Our "chemical existence" is -included- in the information processing explanation.  Electro-chemical information processing. That's why neuropeptide receptors are targets for drugs.

[polymath257]

Well, the 'feel' seems to be a combination of the information and the emotional response to that information. The emotional response is the 'flavor'. And it seems pretty clear why the flavor was added from an evolutionary viewpoint: in makes it easier to remember and recall. It also makes it easier to act on in emergencies.

Do you question whether your dog is conscious? Isn't it clear?

Yes abundantly clear and I suspect that it is a common thing way down line toward animals far simpler than my dogs.  But it isn't clear whether any of the others (with the possible exception of some apes, whales and maybe elephants) engage in the conscious weighing of alternatives in the abstract manner we do it, incorporating a concept of time and making use of language.  I assume by information you are referring to memory and making links from past experience to current circumstances which I assume happens for all animals possessed of even a rudimentary for processing sensory input, even though for most may amount to little more than a preconscious stimulus/response capacity which they lack the capacity to step beyond.

But yes the emotional response and feeling is the flavor, and appeals to our existence as a complex set of chemical actions as opposed to our existence as information processors.  Since we come to the hard question of consciousness from the information processing direction it is important to bear in mind that there is more to what we are and do than that.  Our chemical existence may well inform emotion and go toward explaining things like compulsion and fight/flight response as well as being the secret sauce of happiness, something no idea can replace.

Language is a different thing. And there have been studies about rudimentary aspects of language in other species.

But I fail to see what the 'more to what we are and do than that' is supposed to be. I really don't see anything substantially different that isn't explained by the 'chemical existence'. Could you be more specific?

---

I find it interesting that we call it philosophy until we figure out a way to actually test an idea. After that, we call it science. The first is speculation and the second is knowledge.

This is not to say that speculation isn't a useful thing: it most definitely is. But it isn't knowledge.

Philosophy is more than just speculation. Not everything can be empirically verified. Just as philosophy has its limitations, so do the sciences.

And one of the limitations of philosophy is that it is speculation. it cannot, by its very nature, prove things. It can investigate logical alternatives, but logic alone is a very, very weak filter on ideas.

The best philosophy is done when alternative definitions are investigated and their benefits analyzed.

[Whateverist]

Our "chemical existence" is -included- in the information processing explanation.  Electro-chemical information processing.  That's why neuropeptide receptors are targets for drugs.

Of course all the information processing depends on chemistry all the way.  I'm trying to say I think that propositional thought does not give rise to what we feel; rather, that comes from a different chemical loop probably tied up with the endocrine system.  From the point of view of our rational thought - or propositional musings- feeling and emotion just happen and we sometimes have to figure out what it is we're feeling.  If we feel motivated to act on emotion we may rationally decide to retrain action or we may decide to put rational thought in the service of acting on those impulses more effectively.  Feeling/emotion have their own agendas which can be fueled by very primitive impulses or suppressed desires of which we're no longer aware.  We don't rationally choose our feelings and emotions, more likely they direct the course of our deliberations.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's interesting that we think that..that theres some mechanical seperation between "logical thought" and "emotional thought".  How we think and how we feel, in sum. We have no evidence that this is the case and no reason to assume it's true.

We sometimes refer to regions of the brain being relatively more active in some given x..but, ofc, that doesn't mean that any other region is silent, that it's not cross informing. Then the whole thing lights up and we're stroking out, lol.

Talk about designing a horse by committee. A camel doesn't have shit on us.

Similarly, we think that the "emotional bit" is the primitive part and the dry "rational bit" the more advanced part...but that can't be true, at least not in us, by reference to the simplest cnas from which our own was evolutionarily derived.

[Whateverist]

It's interesting that we think that..that theres some mechanical seperation between "logical thought" and "emotional thought".  How we think and how we feel, in sum. We have no evidence that this is the case and no reason to assume it's true.

No I’m just describing the way it seems to me from my own first person perspective. No claims of objectivity included or implied. Is your own experience very different then? An adequate account of consciousness probably should square with what we experience or at least explain how the false appearance arise. So I think the struggle between impulse and best judgement needs to be accounted for by whatever theory one offers.

---

I don’t know how post so much on your phone. I suck at this.

[The Grand Nudger]

No I’m just describing the way it seems to me from my own first person perspective.  No claims of objectivity included or implied.  Is your own experience very different then?

It's unlikely that my experience is different from your own by any statistically significant margin.  Even if we were entirely different and opposite people we'd be what, a couple points of deviation away from each other on a narrow standard scale?  

I'll use the comp analogy just for this response and then drop it (lol)..but, to an alu, what we might call an emotional input and what we might call a rational input are functionally equivalent.  The system is capable of doing the same work in the same way on either and would be incapable of distinguishing between the two in the vast majority of cases without meta-data on the inputs.  

An adequate account of consciousness probably should square with what we experience or at least explain how the false appearance arise. So I think the struggle between impulse and best judgement needs to be accounted for by whatever theory one offers.

"Impulse" would be the analog of dry logical function in living creatures.  "Best judgement"..a much higher level abstraction or language that included emotional inputs.  It's easy to see why people don't see it that way, or miss the subtlety on the conflation by natural semantics.  

A simple system does x if y..for example.  There's your basic IF function (one of a range of functions implemented in an alu). Doesn't matter what the x or the y is.  That's entirely logical even if both x and y are..in our normal conversational sense..not.  The fact that we act on our emotions or impulses are both equally logical from the point of view of the system...and our designating something as one or the other (in the conversational sense) would rely on meta-data, and the validity of our designation on both the accuracy and accessibility of the meta-data.

Do either you or I actually have -that- sort of experience, accurate and accessible metadata about the function of our minds? Unlikely. Maybe in loooong retrospect, with an even higher level of abstraction and regimented thought, lol. Certainly not a common thing or a thing that we realize in the moment. Meanwhile...."if the sky is :jumping jacks: then do :rabbit:" is just one of the many possible descriptions of a logical function.

[SaStrike]

What's the point of anything? Try answering without using philosophy please.

[bennyboy]

This is partly why I am allergic to the notion of 'the thing itself' separated from the information we have about it.

Temperature and electricity are both macroscopic phenomena: temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules while electricity is related to the motion of charges.

Now, you can reasonably ask what an electric field is. or what a magnetic field is. Or even what mass is. Or energy. But *all* are operationally defined. The meaning of those terms is *defined* by how we can take measurements of them. At no point is it even reasonable to talk about the 'thing itself'. ALL we can do is model what we observe. We go beyond that only in models we create to understand and predict future observations.

I think operational definitions are important. If you had only to observe a thing As-It-Really-Is™, you could never really do anything. However, one of the roles of philosophy with regard to science is to make sure that no matter what operational definitions or models we come up with, we don't conflate them with the actual thing, Whatever-It-Is.

For example, we do great brain science by studying organic chemistry, using various electromagnetic frequencies to see what neurons are doing, etc. But I will always slam on the brakes when someone insists that it's known that "the mind is only brain function," or even worse, "the mind is only information processing." It's very interesting to study both brain function and information processing, but philosophical bias in science could eventually limit avenues of inquiry too much.

For example, if we "know" that mind is only brain function or information processing, we may give human rights to Google.com some day, without considering seriously whether that's necessary or even well-advised. Philosophy is there to challenge biases every step of the way: "Tell me (yet) again how you know google is actually thinking. Why does your definition of thought merit the application of human rights?" and so on.

---

And one of the limitations of philosophy is that it is speculation. it cannot, by its very nature, prove things. It can investigate logical alternatives, but logic alone is a very, very weak filter on ideas.

The best philosophy is done when alternative definitions are investigated and their benefits analyzed.

How do you know when something is proven? How do we decide whether something is really a benefit or not? How are we to determine whether analysis is being done correctly? How do we decide which aspects of the Universe are most worth investigating? Science can't really determine whether science is being done correctly, because circles are bad.

Literally at every step of the way, philosophy is woven through the fabric of science, and pretty much every human experience and endeavor.