Summations Only

And science is perfectly comfortable giving that answer too. The teapot is boiling because a human labelled Grandma has put it on the stove is an empirical claim perfectly amenable to confirmation by science. A scientist might ask Grandma, why is the teapot boiling. A scientist may observe Grandma's actions to see if they are consistent with her statements. A scientist may even go so far as to MRI that old lady to learn more about her desires for tea. A future scientist may even be able to assess whether grandma truly believes that the teapot boiling is a precursor to satisfying thirst.Science can succesfully answer purpose questions, where purpose exists. It cannot answer purpose questions where there is no evidence of any purpose.It can not answer what the purpose of a blue sky is, since it has no evidenced purpose and no evidenced purpose giver. If such a thing were to ever come about (evidence for God for example) science may well be the best set of tools we have to really get to grips with said purpose. As it stands, there is no purpose for a blue sky, so asking 'what is the purpose of the sky being blue' can only be answered with 'there is no known purpose'. Science can help us identify whether there is any known purpose and what it is.

I'm talking about science. The practice of using observations and reasoning from those observations in a particular fashion. If you want to suggest that purpose is a socially constructed thing, then fair enough. But it can still be studied empirically. I would agree that physics does not address human purposes. But as I say, I'm talking about science, a certain empirically based methodology for learning about the world, not just physics, chemistry and biology.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Unless you are a substance dualist, the reason why you had a thought is an empirical question, being as it is based on physical phenomena. It is a difficult thing to study, but it is not in principle necessarily impossible. There are several layers of possible answers.For instance, we could establish that the reason why you thought that flipping the number '2' card over was a good idea was because of confirmation bias.Or we could learn that the reason why you thought it was a good idea to kill the person was because you were in fear of your life.Or we could learn that the reason why you thought of wearing red socks this morning was because neuron number 7 fired rather than 8. We could even establish the reason why neuron number 7 was the one that fired.Again, this is not necessarily easy, and it's not always (presently) possible. But it is an empirical question, and the tools of science can be employed to try and find an answer.Science can't observe why you think something, but it can use observation and reason to infer why you think something. It might not always be right, but that's science, neh?

Are you suggesting that cause of your thoughts is not a physical phenomenon that is potentially open to empirical investigation? It is exactly the why. For instance, in one case as mentioned in my post the reason why might be confirmation bias.What is why if not a question of mechanics? It is asking 'what mechanics have lead to this outcome?', 'what is the cause of this thing?' 'for what reason does it happen?', 'what is the explanation for this phenomena?'.If you mean something else by the by the question 'why did I think such and such?' the onus is on you to explain what you mean.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In Message 38, you don't say a thing about it.
In Message 40 you are silent on the matter.
In Message 42 you provide no explanation.
Message 44 has an absence of exposition
Message 47 is just a seven word assertion.
Message 49 contains yet more lack of explanation.
Message 51 is you asserting I asserted something, followed by you asserting something yourself, with a familiar void of elucidation as to what you mean by the words you are using.I reject your claim that you have explained what you mean What do you mean by 'actual why'? I was assuming that you know what you mean when you say something. I was just asking for you to tell me that. If I am mistaken, I guess this is at least a futile subthread. If it is not a question of the mechanics behind a phenomena, then what is it?

What does that mean in the context of the question I asked? I am beginning to think that the reason you think this thread is doomed is because your own thinking on the matter is hopelessly confused.Why is the sky blue?The phenomena is the blueness of the sky.Why do I think such a thought?The phenomena is the thought.The thought itself is not why you thought the thought. That's clearly nonsense. So what is why? It can't be the phenomena itself, it is a question about the phenomena. If it isn't asking about the mechanics that lead to the phenomena, what is it about the phenomena that it is asking?

Well I'm glad we agree that science can answer why questions. It's a shame you decided to avoid answering any of my questions about the 'actual why', since it means we can't continue discussing it. That was probably your intention. Yes, it is personal to you, and it is also determined by a physical system which is amenable to empirical study.

Yes, there is empirical evidence for why, and getting a subject to explain their reasoning can be used as evidence. We don't have to believe them, but it is evidence nevertheless. Interviewing subjects is an accepted scientific protocol for gaining evidence for reasons why someone did something, even if we take the heterophenomonological approach that they are not authoritive sources on their own motivations. Indeed. Science can infer why people make decisions. If we abandon ethics, and with sufficient equipment and background information we might also be able to infer details about why a specific individual made a specific decision. Sure, poetry could hand you an answer too. But the claim is that science cannot hand you an answer...when in fact it is not only capable, but probably the most capable methodology for so doing.

I don't see why it is in principle impossible to empirically determine the reason why your brain or mind shows a preference towards blueness of sky.I'd ask you to explain yourself further, but I now realize that is not your goal in this thread.

We don't need to perform trials like that to determine answers. If we are examining the evidence that is available and using reasoning to infer to the most probable answer - we're doing science. It might not be reliable science, it might even be a little informal, 'soft', 'primitive' or the like.We can use evidence and reasoning to determine the reason that exists behind preferences.Perhaps we learn in our investigations that grandma has a certain inherited brain structure that gives her preferences for a certain flavours. We might learn that her mother used to make this brand of tea, so there are positive associations with it. We might even discover that the particular brand of tea has an addictive quality to it. We might find out that grandma is poor and its the cheapest tea available, and she thinks she prefers it but it is just a bias inherent in human brains to 'make the best of what we can'.We can gather this kind of evidence and infer why grandma likes that tea.We might be wrong, the uncertainty in our answers may be high - but we infer to the best explanation we can given the evidence we have managed to acquire. An anecdotal answer would be one piece of evidence we could gather in a complete scientific investigation using all the tools of science that we have at our disposal. We may not be able to get aboslute answer, indeed the tentativity may be quite large.

I fail to see how this response is relevant to anything I have been saying or how it answers any of the questions I have asked of your position.

It was the title of a piece about Dan Dennett. I believe it was by Giulio Giorello.

quote:

---

Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When you are up to the challenge of explaining your point, I'm sure I'll still be around to discuss it.

Holy rolling Moses naked on a tricycle, strangling a goose, eating peanut butter jelly sandwiches made of diamonds, jar! I prefixed my comments to you with the following sentence

quote:

---

Unless you are a substance dualist, the reason why you had a thought is an empirical question, being as it is based on physical phenomena.

---

You could have saved me both time and effort by simply explaining that you were discussing the situation from the unsupported and unsupportable position of dualism. That would have been an explanation that you seemed so desperate to avoid.

And Plato would counterargue that the fact that you can identify love, beauty, honour or god are because you are remembering the ideal forms from a prebirth state of existence. And different people recall things differently, so disagree on some of those things, but they are all referring to the same ideal form.