TPF : Triumph of Neuroscience
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:04 pm
The Unequivocal Triumph Of Neuroscience - On Consciousness
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/ ... 473/gnomon
One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. — Garrett Travers
As one of the dissenting "denizens" of The Philosophy Forum, I'll reiterate my contention that empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers are interested in different kinds of "evidence". Some early philosophers, such as Aristotle, included both observational evidence, and speculative reasoning under the heading of Natural Science. Yet, he astutely separated his generalizations from the specific observations .
After the contentious divorce of Philosophy from Theology, the partition of Physics (science) from Meta-physics (philosophy) was made official. Hence, the focus of Natural Science was limited to A> objective evidence that can be replicated by any well-informed person. But that strict requirement eliminated from consideration any B> subjective evidence that is restricted to individual minds. And it's your narrow focus on type A evidence, that allows you to boast about the "unequivocal triumph of neuroscience". Admittedly, abstract rational Philosophy is still tarred with the same brush as spiritual revealed religion. There is some conceptual overlap, but they are not the same paradigm.
However, only a few modern philosophers are also practicing scientists. So their reasoned opinions, including those of Daniel Dennett, are easily dismissed as mere illusions or "speculations". Some mind-miners may do psychological or sociological studies to obtain statistical evidence of Ethical beliefs & behaviors. But few scientists would call their interpretations of such bell curves "empirical". And the philosophers don't consider their circumstantial evidence to be in competition with an empirical smoking gun. Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers.
One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein : he split no atoms, and looked through no telescopes, He merely used subjective imagination & mathematical logic to construct hypothetical experiments for others to carry out. He was, what we now call, a "Theoretical Scientist", not an Empirical Researcher. Likewise, those engaged in String Theory research, have no hard evidence of their own to crow about. Yet, they like to think of themselves as "real" scientists. However, you might reasonably describe their efforts as "mere speculation", unsupported by "unequivocal" evidence.
Consequently, my "impression" of the OP is that it is based on a typical Category Error, to hold the arguments on this Philosophy Forum to the same standards-of-proof as topics discussed on a Neuroscience Forum (see below). FWIW, I don't deny that it's possible for AI to eventually become Self-Aware. But I'm not aware of any current empirical evidence of computed Consciousness. Nevertheless, I take Neural & Computational research into account, as I pursue my own interests in the philosophical implications of Human Consciousness.
Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview".
Philosophical Science :
Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/gener ... rved-facts
Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas
“I don’t know of any philosophical reason why [it] should be inherently unsolvable” — but “humans seem nowhere close to solving it.” ___computer scientist Scott Aaronson
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neurosci ... -20190306/
Philosophers use science in free will arguments :
Philosophy Professor Paul Davies and Associate Philosophy Professor Matt Haug both call upon scientific findings and research in their arguments, because both philosophy and science are concerned with some fundamental questions: What makes us act? Is it our intentions, or something else? What are our minds? Are they simply our brains? Or is there more beyond the physical structure?
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2016/ne ... osophy.php
The Neuroscience Forum :
http://www.neuroscienceforum.com/
If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong :
It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ure-wrong/
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/ ... 473/gnomon
One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. — Garrett Travers
As one of the dissenting "denizens" of The Philosophy Forum, I'll reiterate my contention that empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers are interested in different kinds of "evidence". Some early philosophers, such as Aristotle, included both observational evidence, and speculative reasoning under the heading of Natural Science. Yet, he astutely separated his generalizations from the specific observations .
After the contentious divorce of Philosophy from Theology, the partition of Physics (science) from Meta-physics (philosophy) was made official. Hence, the focus of Natural Science was limited to A> objective evidence that can be replicated by any well-informed person. But that strict requirement eliminated from consideration any B> subjective evidence that is restricted to individual minds. And it's your narrow focus on type A evidence, that allows you to boast about the "unequivocal triumph of neuroscience". Admittedly, abstract rational Philosophy is still tarred with the same brush as spiritual revealed religion. There is some conceptual overlap, but they are not the same paradigm.
However, only a few modern philosophers are also practicing scientists. So their reasoned opinions, including those of Daniel Dennett, are easily dismissed as mere illusions or "speculations". Some mind-miners may do psychological or sociological studies to obtain statistical evidence of Ethical beliefs & behaviors. But few scientists would call their interpretations of such bell curves "empirical". And the philosophers don't consider their circumstantial evidence to be in competition with an empirical smoking gun. Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers.
One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein : he split no atoms, and looked through no telescopes, He merely used subjective imagination & mathematical logic to construct hypothetical experiments for others to carry out. He was, what we now call, a "Theoretical Scientist", not an Empirical Researcher. Likewise, those engaged in String Theory research, have no hard evidence of their own to crow about. Yet, they like to think of themselves as "real" scientists. However, you might reasonably describe their efforts as "mere speculation", unsupported by "unequivocal" evidence.
Consequently, my "impression" of the OP is that it is based on a typical Category Error, to hold the arguments on this Philosophy Forum to the same standards-of-proof as topics discussed on a Neuroscience Forum (see below). FWIW, I don't deny that it's possible for AI to eventually become Self-Aware. But I'm not aware of any current empirical evidence of computed Consciousness. Nevertheless, I take Neural & Computational research into account, as I pursue my own interests in the philosophical implications of Human Consciousness.
Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview".
Philosophical Science :
Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/gener ... rved-facts
Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas
“I don’t know of any philosophical reason why [it] should be inherently unsolvable” — but “humans seem nowhere close to solving it.” ___computer scientist Scott Aaronson
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neurosci ... -20190306/
Philosophers use science in free will arguments :
Philosophy Professor Paul Davies and Associate Philosophy Professor Matt Haug both call upon scientific findings and research in their arguments, because both philosophy and science are concerned with some fundamental questions: What makes us act? Is it our intentions, or something else? What are our minds? Are they simply our brains? Or is there more beyond the physical structure?
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2016/ne ... osophy.php
The Neuroscience Forum :
http://www.neuroscienceforum.com/
If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong :
It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ure-wrong/
