TPF : Triumph of Neuroscience

[Gnomon]

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/

[Gnomon]

I have never encountered so many narcissists. — Garrett Travers

There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument?

Yes, of course, it is a Category Error because this is a philosophy forum. As if philosophical training isn't science intensive and focused. Unreal. — Garrett Travers

So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher?

Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference ... hilosophy/

Complete nonsense. Albert Einstein was an open point of skepticism within the scientific strata until.... guess when.... Empirical assessment validated his claims. — Garrett Travers

As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you?

Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist :
https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein- ... 0875482864

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-scienc ... scientist/

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Disregarding Known Science[/1] — Garrett Travers

Quoting GT : "Evidence please". You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ?

Trump's Uncorroborated Allegations :
President Trump's baseless and desperate claims . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029

Does science tell the truth? :
The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-what-is-truth/
21 minutes ago

[Gnomon]

Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry. — Garrett Travers

Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)

You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)

It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day.

https://i.imgflip.com/4dgfvk.jpg

[Gnomon]

Fuck off. Come back when you want to produce an argument. — Garrett Travers

The use of vulgar four-letter words is considered gauche on this genteel forum. Besides, it sounds like the exasperation of defeat. But a philosophical forum is a zero-sum game, not a win-lose conflict. We are just trying to get closer to the whole truth, not motivated to score points for "our side". We're all on the same team here. No us-vs-them arguments, just all-of-us-truth-seekers dialogues.

Unfortunately, you seem to view (idealized) "Science" as the last bastion of absolute Truth. Coming from an evangelical background, I understand the confidence that comes from the certainty of having the word-of-God in a single book. But after my loss of faith in revealed Truth, I had a few polite exchanges of views, that eventually broke-down into defensive postures, when I refused to play the game on their one-sided terms. They insisted that the only admissible "evidence" was biblical. So, some acted like stymied bullies, and began to sulk. They took their infallible books and went home.

FWIW, you may find that "triumphant" trumpeting on a philosophy forum is going to be alienating for those who doubt partisan truth-claims. In any case, Neuroscience deals in "observables", while Psychology and Philosophy are forced to grapple with "un-observables". At the moment, neither profession is in a position to feel "triumphant" on the "hard-problem" of Consciousness (to know within, hence unobservable).

Scientific Truth :
The previous discussion concentrated on only one of the controversies that surround scientific realism, the debate about whether talk of unobservables should have the same status as talk of observables. Contemporary exchanges, however, are often directed at a broader issue: the possibility of judging whether any claim at all is true. Some of these exchanges involve issues that are as old as philosophy—very general questions about the nature and possibility of truth.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philos ... ific-truth

Skepticism vs Truth :
The view that truth in religion is ultimately based on faith rather than on reasoning or evidence—a doctrine known as fideism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Philosophical skepticism :
Unmitigated skeptics believe that objective truths are unknowable and that man should live in an isolated environment in order to win mental peace. . . . Mitigated skeptics hold that knowledge does not require certainty
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Philosophical_skepticism
22 hours ago