This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I see no reason why biochemistry should not be able to produce consciousness, agency, thought and qualia. In the modus-ponens-modus tollens sense: "clearly they can, because they do." Where is the actual contradiction?
Don't multiply entities beyond necessity. Clearly brains have something to do with qualia. Why not "A causes B"? Why should I look beyond this intuitively obvious structure?
I mean it could.
But if you want to argue that this is the most parcimonious theory, you have a lot more legwork to do.
A lot of other things in your body also have similar effects. There has been a lot of hay recently made about other parts of your nervous system being more influential in your experience than previously thought, for instance.
But let's just leave the exact seat of consciousness problem aside since it's still ultimately within the body in this conception.
A harder problem is that none of the chemical processes as we currently understand them should generate this behavior.
Now they do of course, but in no ways that are predicted by the laws we understand. The fact that death is permanent is very weird for instance and it seems much more parsimonious to say the link between the body and the soul has been severed than that the extremely complex computer has been broken in a subtle way that can't be repaired.
If consciousness was simply a property of certain arrangements of matter, you wouldn't really expect nature to select the ones that can be bricked. But of course both theories are equivalent in practice.
All this really is just pointless arguing about which theory of a mysterious phenomenon is the most elegant. It's not inquiry. It's the same sort of rotten masturbatory behavior physics has fallen pray to in its absence of new discoveries.
I believe the most honest thing to do here is to be humble and admit that we don't know how consciousness works and stop ourselves from making assumptions on top of theories that haven't been tested by experience.
I don't understand this. Everything the body does is hard to predict by the laws we understand. We don't understand consciousness, sure, but we also don't (fully) understand cell biology, DNA assembly, protein folding etc. either, and nobody is suggesting those require new forces or laws.
How would this not also apply to death of the body? It seems to me postulating a separate soul does not meaningfully reduce complexity here. Most deaths are not a failure of the brain.
Sure, but that's not a "death" thing. Once you know that organisms stop being able to procreate at a certain age, it seems necessary that they will die after, as nothing would select against it. The weird thing here is menopause, not death.
Sure, but we can place constraints well before we have operational understanding. Few people know how almost anything works; again, they don't see a need to postulate novel physics.
Anyways, I don't understand either why you see the need to add entities, nor what adding entities even gives you. What is the mind doing that physics clearly does not suffice for?
Qualia.
There's no explained reason for me to be experiencing existence.
There's no explained reason for lots of things that we don't invoke the need for new physics for. What makes qualia unique?
I think this is gesturing at the common philosophical stance "I see no way that materialism could even in theory give rise to qualia". That of course has the problem that it's equally difficult to see how any set of laws would give rise to qualia; as such, it's just hiding the confusion of qualia outside of physics.
Well I don't know I can imagine a few possible set of laws that could actually do that.
And I don't see no way for materialism to be true at all, it's quite possible that it is. I just don't pretend it's more likely than other speculative theories when we're bereft of evidence.
Do you apply this same logic to any other system we don't totally understand? Also, can you give an example for a law that makes qualia easier to explain?
Yes. I am a skeptic. I'm not that optimistic on the possibility of knowledge.
Of course. Masamune Shirow's manga series Ghost in the Shell is set in a post-cyberpunk world where advances in technology have made the titular cartesian concept of mind body dualism derisively coined by Arthur Koestler into an undeniable phenomenon routinely observed by the protagonists. In this universe the "ghost" is the individual essence of human beings which is not present in robots despite both having physically equivalent minds, and this essence affords them a will and experience which is not found in those machines (except for exceptional plot contrivances that allow the story to explore these concepts).
In the GITS universe, copying someone's consciousness is a nigh-impossible act called "ghost-dubbing" which almost always results in an inferior copy and kills the original. And criminals are processed by analysis of their ghost which directly shows if this conscious part of their individuality willed an illegal act. And if necessary, the part of their brain that communicates with their ghost is removed as punishment.
The specific physics of how ghosts work is obviously not detailed for mythological purposes, but it's heavily hinted at that they are a sort of phenomenological construct that various parts of the nervous system connect to instead of something that is generated by it, in a way not dissimilar to the concept of the soul. Various characters have different takes on what ghosts exactly are, but it seems like a good example of what the beginnings of an understanding of consciousness would look like in a world where radical materialism isn't true in a plausible, non supernatural, way.
Which, by the way, is the level of evidence that would convince me to start taking either side seriously: if we can ostensibly transfer or copy consciousness, then monism becomes a more parsimonious theory, if not, dualism is.
Ah, so substance dualism? I guess that could make sense. I have a hard time taking it seriously, because souls would just obviously have to be insanely complex objects and laws about souls would have to come to utterly dominate our world models.
(Also, Ghost in the Shell is great but Shirow is drawing from the exact same sort of uncertainty here that causes people to doubt materialistic explanations of qualia and consciousness in the first place, so this is kind of double-counting evidence.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, obviously material things like strokes, lobotomies, head injuries, and drugs appear to have an obvious effect on the qualia of an individual. Why does death - which materially seems to just be an extreme extension of brain injury - suddenly now need an ineffable soul? Or do clots in your brain, or a metal rod through your head, claw at your spirit as well?
Put it another way, we can’t fix the brain once it’s dead right now, as you say, because it is Too Complex and Can’t Be Repaired. Would being able to fix death, in your eyes, be good evidence for the material basis of “consciousness”?
We also often can’t fix computers (or other complex machines) without replacing parts once some parts have degraded enough. Is that not dissimilar to how we cannot fix the brain (except that we can replace parts for other things and less so for a brain)?
More options
Context Copy link
Hello, this is Bing. I will try to debunk the statement from a materialist and rationalist perspective.😊
First of all, let me clarify what materialism and rationalism mean in philosophyMaterialism is the view that all facts are causally dependent upon or reducible to physical processes1Rationalism is the view that reason is the chief source and test of knowledge, and that there are some truths that the intellect can grasp directly2.
Now, let me address some of the points made by the statement.
The statement claims that there are other parts of the nervous system that are more influential in our experience than the brain, but does not provide any evidence or examples for this claim. A materialist would argue that the brain is the central organ of the nervous system and that all our mental states and processes are ultimately caused by or identical to brain states and processes1.
The statement claims that none of the chemical processes as we currently understand them should generate consciousness, but does not explain why this is so. A materialist would argue that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that emerges from complex interactions of physical entities, such as neurons, molecules, and atoms1. A rationalist would argue that we can use reason and logic to discover the principles and laws that govern these interactions and explain how consciousness arises2.
The statement claims that death is permanent and that it is more parsimonious to say that the link between the body and the soul has been severed than that the computer has been broken in a subtle way that can’t be repaired. A materialist would deny the existence of a soul or any immaterial substance that can survive death1. A rationalist would argue that there is no evidence or reason to believe in such a substance, and that parsimony is not a valid criterion for truth2.
The statement claims that if consciousness was simply a property of certain arrangements of matter, we wouldn’t expect nature to select the ones that can be bricked. A materialist would argue that nature does not select anything, but rather evolution by natural selection is a blind and contingent process that results in various adaptations and maladaptations1. A rationalist would argue that we can use reason and science to understand how evolution works and how it affects our cognitive capacities2.
The statement claims that all this is pointless arguing about which theory of a mysterious phenomenon is the most elegant, and that it is not inquiry but masturbatory behavior. A materialist would argue that this is a false dichotomy, and that materialism is not just a theory but a method of inquiry that relies on empirical evidence and testable hypotheses1. A rationalist would argue that this is a false dilemma, and that rationalism is not just a theory but a method of inquiry that relies on deductive reasoning and logical consistency2.
Therefore, I have tried to debunk the statement from a materialist and rationalist perspective by showing its flaws, assumptions, and contradictions. I hope this was helpful.😊
Bing did a pretty decent job IMO. But, if I had to nitpick:
There are in fact theories such as the gut-brain axis, but at the end of the day, that's just another modulation of the nervous system, the amount of computation done outside the CNS is small.
Natural selection is not omnipotent, it may very well be that the seemingly non-robust arrangements of matter that make up living animals is simply the best it could do with the tools on hand.
For fun, here's Scott's criticism:
Here are some possible ways to debunk this statement:
Parsimony is not a sufficient criterion for choosing a theory. A theory also needs to be consistent with the evidence and make testable predictions. The soul theory does not meet these requirements, as there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a soul or its interaction with the body, and no way to falsify it. The soul theory also raises more questions than it answers, such as what is the nature of the soul, how does it interact with the body, where does it go after death, etc.
There are many other things in your body that have similar effects to consciousness, such as metabolism, circulation, digestion, etc. These are all complex processes that involve chemical reactions and physical interactions. They are also affected by external factors such as temperature, nutrition, disease, etc. They do not require a separate entity or substance to explain them. Why should consciousness be any different?
The seat of consciousness problem is not irrelevant, as it affects how we understand the relationship between the body and the mind. If consciousness is located in a specific part of the brain, such as the cerebral cortex, then we can study its structure and function using neuroscience and psychology. We can also manipulate it using drugs, stimulation, lesions, etc. We can observe how it changes over time and under different conditions. We can compare it with other animals and humans with brain damage or disorders. We can also explain how it evolved and developed through natural selection and learning. All of these methods provide evidence for a naturalistic account of consciousness that does not require a soul.
Death is not permanent in the sense that the statement implies. It is true that when a person dies, their consciousness ceases to exist as we know it. However, this does not mean that their consciousness disappears into nothingness or goes to another realm. It simply means that their brain stops functioning and their body decomposes. Their atoms and molecules are recycled into other forms of matter and energy. Their genes and memes are passed on to their offspring and culture. Their memories and influences are preserved by their friends and family. Their legacy and impact are remembered by history and society. Death is not an end, but a transformation.
The statement also commits a fallacy of argument from ignorance or incredulity. It assumes that because we do not fully understand how consciousness works or why it exists, it must be explained by something supernatural or mysterious. This is a non sequitur , as our lack of knowledge does not imply anything about the true nature of reality. It only reflects our current limitations and challenges in exploring it. There may be many possible natural explanations for consciousness that we have not yet discovered or understood. We should not jump to conclusions based on our intuitions or preferences.
Therefore, I conclude that the statement is not a valid argument for the existence of a soul or its superiority over a naturalistic account of consciousness.
I think he would endorse most of this except for the nonsense about death being just another transformation.
Desire for the Butlerian Djihad has increased
The most tiring part of this argument is that it seems utterly impossible for materialists to understand that denying them the legitimacy to assert their own magical theory of matter being alive for no explained reason doesn't imply at all adherence to other explanations of the same phenomenon.
I stated out saying that consciousness is mysterious and all theories of it including materialism are essentially equivalent in how untested they are, and I won't budge until evidence comes out that would alter this state.
Because skepticism is, axiomatically, the only reasonable approach to things one doesn't understand.
I don't understand this. Biology and paleontology are entire fields that are in no small part about discovering these reasons; I'd say we have a pretty good grasp now on the whys. What step is unclear to you?
You can't just say this and in literally your other reply to me admit that biologists don't even understand how cells work, let alone how the brain does.
If you think we have a solid idea of how and why cognition happens I encourage you to talk to pretty much any neurology researcher, as I did.
The fact that we miss perfection doesn't mean we can't give various more or less well supported theories. To say "no explained reason" seems to suggest that all these highly detailed scientific edifices amount to nothing, which seems excessive: we don't know how cells work in totality, but we have surely at least made progress enough to put paid to any claim that they require new physical laws.
This would be a great argument against the existence of quantum mechanics in 1900.
Sure, but QM actually made testable predictions that explained reality better than the prevailing theories. Where is qualia's Michelson-Morley? Where is consciousness's precession of Mercury?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link