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 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.
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?
Surely that would be examination of the deep processes of the brain by neurology and the ability to predict/model complex ideas and how consciousness appears and disappears.
We are far from even this. But Neuralink's grandchildren are probably the answer to your question.
In some sense qualia's very existence is the cloud on the horizon of materialism being a full theory of mind. But something simpler like why people even dream is already something we can't explain and could have revolutionary explanations.
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