Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 353 (648711)
01-17-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Straggler
01-17-2012 4:45 PM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
I think you are being particularly charitable to RAZ and that your interpretation of his position isn't justified by his actual responses to bluegenes.
As I said in Message 129:
quote:
Suppose a Canadian said: "It never really snows in the U.S.". Now, if I wanted them to be wrong, I could assume they were saying something stupid because of course it snows down here. But giving them the benfit of the doubt, and assuming they're not just saying something stupid, I could parse the phrase as saying that, compared to the ridiculous amounts of snow they get in Canada, what little bit we do get down here doesn't really count as snowing.
Why don't you explicitly ask RAZ himself if science can and does answer 'why' questions and if it does what sort of 'why' questions it can and cannot answer?
In Message 25, RAZD wrote:
quote:
I do believe you and Catholic Scientist got it.
Whose purpose?
Nobody in particular. I haven't gotten that specific.
If there is purpose about which questions can be asked then there must be an agent capable of purpose behind the phenomenon in question must there not? If you ask "Why are plants green?" and demand an answer involving purpose there must be an agent of purpose behind the colour of plants in order to make the question meaningful - Right?
That's neither here nor there. I'm not demanding an answer, nor that a meaningful purpose actually exists. I'm just explaining what I think the phrase means.
Straggler writes:
Are you sure that you are not conflating practical limitations with what science can in principle study? The fact that we are not all walking around with sophisticated MRI scanners attached to our heads recording every neurological event doesn't mean that our thoughts and associated purposes are inherently beyond the scope of scientific enquiry (not unless you are adopting the dualistic position already discussed anyway)
CS writes:
That's true, but beside the point.
It is entirely the point.
Not the point I'm making... from Message 70
quote:
Science can investigate damn-near everything, but this doesn't include a certain kind of why-questions (I'd call how a subset of why). With science, you need to be able to control an experiment. Some things can't be nailed down enough for scientific controls. Other things are too broad to be defined well enough for a proper scientific investigation.
-why did Grandma X choose that tea?
-why are we here?
You don't have multiple Grandma X's to set-up a controlled experinment with.
"Being here" doesn't necessarily imply some purpose with which to answer the question "why".
And further in Message 79:
quote:
I don't think its making a claim about the ultimate capabilities of an emprical investigation, in the sense that we could clone some girl 10 times and let them age to Grandma status, and then perform a controlled experiment on them to determine which things cause these individuals to choose that particular tea... Its about what science does, and science doesn't answer questions like that.
Hold on - Are you seriously claiming that science cannot investigate and answer questions pertaining to individual one-off events? Even if all the data pertaining to that event has been recorded?
You cannot set-up a proper scientific experiment without scientific controls to eliminate the variables and one-off events do not allow for that luxery. That is not a claim about what is empirically investigatable tho.
With detailed enough knowledge, recorded neuron level information of brain activity and full data of sensory input, why not?
You are simply going down the substance dualist path without realising it......
No, you're just trying to force me down that path. My position has nothing to do with dualism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2012 4:45 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2012 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 317 of 353 (648712)
01-17-2012 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2012 5:42 PM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
Please - Explicitly ask RAZ whether or not science can and does answer 'why' questions and if it does which 'why' questions can or cannot be answered by science.
Straggler writes:
If there is purpose about which questions can be asked then there must be an agent capable of purpose behind the phenomenon in question must there not? If you ask "Why are plants green?" and demand an answer involving purpose there must be an agent of purpose behind the colour of plants in order to make the question meaningful - Right?
CS writes:
That's neither here nor there. I'm not demanding an answer, nor that a meaningful purpose actually exists. I'm just explaining what I think the phrase means.
And I'm explaining that the very question being asked is assuming or demanding that a purposeful agent exist for it to have any meaning at all.
Straggler writes:
Whose purpose?
CS writes:
Nobody in particular. I haven't gotten that specific.
Yes. And that's the problem. For the question to have any meaning there must be a purposeful agent must there not? The ambiguity about who this unstated entity might be is what leads to the whole debacle of people insisting that science cannot answer "why" questions. This ambiguity is the root of the problem.
CS writes:
You cannot set-up a proper scientific experiment without scientific controls to eliminate the variables and one-off events do not allow for that luxery.
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc.
This idea of yours that no matter how much data we have science is limited to answering questions about things directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories is nonsense.
Straggler writes:
With detailed enough knowledge, recorded neuron level information of brain activity and full data of sensory input, why not? You are simply going down the substance dualist path without realising it......
CS writes:
No, you're just trying to force me down that path. My position has nothing to do with dualism.
Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2012 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:49 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 325 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2012 5:22 AM Straggler has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 318 of 353 (648742)
01-18-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2012 5:40 PM


What is the ultimate meaning of life and this thread?
Catholic writes:
The reason that I think the interrogatives are brought into it is that that's how people think about it. When they're looking for some underlying purpose or meaning behind some phenomenon, besides an otherwise mundane mechanical explanation, they'll ask themselves why its happening. For what reason does this occur... not under what conditions, i.e. how it occurs.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that, if they were even half good thinkers, those thought processes would not lead them to the conclusion that because why and what (and reason) can be used in profound philisophical questions of purpose, that questions of purpose are or should be their only use. It's not actually a conclusion you've come to. Where you're wrong in attempting to defend Zen Deist is that it does seem to be a conclusion that he's come to, and that was what I was picking him up on in the other thread when I asked him not to further Dawn's linguistic confusion. Statement 2 in the O.P. is his opinion, it's not the first time he's expressed it, and he's 100% wrong.
Statement 2 from the O.P.
quote:
"The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose."
Message 143
C. S. writes:
I think you're over-analyzing it.
I think I'm just stating the obvious!
BTW, here's the original point I was making to Zen Deist on that thread. Message 137

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2012 5:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:48 AM bluegenes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 319 of 353 (648765)
01-18-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by bluegenes
01-18-2012 7:27 AM


Re: What is the ultimate meaning of life and this thread?
Statement 2 in the O.P. is his opinion, it's not the first time he's expressed it, and he's 100% wrong.
Statement 2 from the O.P.
quote:
"The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose."
Whether or not that's proper is a subjective opinion. He's basing his on the primary dictionary definition of "why". You tried to show that the primary dictionary definition included other uses because it had the "or" in there, but I don't think you were correct about that assessment. The defintion read as: for what reason, for what cause, or for what purpose. "For what cause" being a different question than "how" in the sense of how it was caused.
I don't care about what's proper, but regarding the catchphrase of this thread, with it distinguishing between why and how, I think it assumes that the definition of why is different from how. Arguing about whether that is the proper defintion seems pointless.
I think I'm just stating the obvious!
I think you're making it more confusing. Questions of purpose are on a different level than asking about how things happen. You're trying to blur that line and its obuscating the point being made in the catchphrase.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that, if they were even half good thinkers, those thought processes would not lead them to the conclusion that because why and what (and reason) can be used in profound philisophical questions of purpose, that questions of purpose are or should not be their only use.
I presume that "not" I added should be in there... (I forget them too)
I think you're approaching it wrongly (rather than from their point of view).
There's some questions that people ask that try to get to an underlying purpose for existence. They're "doing religion" when they do this. They typically use why-questions. Some might feel that this is the most appropriate usage of that word.
That you can blend the definitions and blur the line between it and other words does not mean that they are wrong for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2012 7:27 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2012 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 353 (648766)
01-18-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Straggler
01-17-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
And I'm explaining that the very question being asked is assuming or demanding that a purposeful agent exist for it to have any meaning at all.
I understand that, I just don't care if you think it has meaning.
Yes. And that's the problem. For the question to have any meaning there must be a purposeful agent must there not? The ambiguity about who this unstated entity might be is what leads to the whole debacle of people insisting that science cannot answer "why" questions. This ambiguity is the root of the problem.
Some people understand the catchphrase from a dualistic standpoint, some people attribute all purpose to God, I'm sure others have their own ways. I'm just explaining what meaning I can pull from it.
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc.
This idea of yours that no matter how much data we have science is limited to answering questions about things directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories is nonsense.
I've already told you that I'm distinguishing between laboratory science and general empirical investigation. Too, that I don't think the catchphrase makes sense as a claim on the limits of science to answer certain semantic structures. Also, that I think its talking about the kinds of answers you get from religion and science more than limiting the questions they can ask. I don't have time to explain why your opponent is a strawman.
Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did?
My poisition doesn't rely on such data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2012 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 01-18-2012 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 321 of 353 (648772)
01-18-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by New Cat's Eye
01-18-2012 10:48 AM


Re: What is the ultimate meaning of life and this thread?
Catholic Scientists writes:
Whether or not that's proper is a subjective opinion. He's basing his on the primary dictionary definition of "why". You tried to show that the primary dictionary definition included other uses because it had the "or" in there, but I don't think you were correct about that assessment. The defintion read as: for what reason, for what cause, or for what purpose. "For what cause" being a different question than "how" in the sense of how it was caused.
Look up "reason". He is not basing his opinion on "the primary definition", and he does not express the view that it's a matter of personal taste, but aggressively implies that his view is objective.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I presume that "not" I added should be in there... (I forget them too)
No. It shouldn't.
Catholic Scientist writes:
There's some questions that people ask that try to get to an underlying purpose for existence. They're "doing religion" when they do this. They typically use why-questions. Some might feel that this is the most appropriate usage of that word.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make? The way that words are used is a reality that can be researched. "Proper" just means "well established". It isn't determined by Zen Deist's religious whims or anyone else's whims, religious or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 12:24 PM bluegenes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 322 of 353 (648778)
01-18-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by bluegenes
01-18-2012 11:36 AM


Re: What is the ultimate meaning of life and this thread?
Look up "reason".
From dictionary.com:
quote:
reason
noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
So, the reason for declaring war wouldn't be a scientific description of the way that cultures interact, or how the brain makes decisions. It'd be something like "for their oil". It'd be the purpose of the war.
He is not basing his opinion on "the primary definition", and he does not express the view that it's a matter of personal taste, but aggressively implies that his view is objective.
Here's the first definition of "why:
quote:
why
adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
The primary definition is one of purpose. The answer to "Why did you behave so badly?" is not a scientific explanation on how the brain causes certain behaviors, nor is it asking about the phycological cause of said behavior. Its asking your purpose behind your behavior.
No. It shouldn't.
Yeah, I misread that as your counter. You're point wasn't lost tho.
What point, exactly, are you trying to make? The way that words are used is a reality that can be researched. "Proper" just means "well established". It isn't determined by Zen Deist's religious whims or anyone else's whims, religious or not.
In that case, I do think he's right: that the proper definition of "why" is a question of purpose. Especially when contrasting it against the other interrogatives. Sure, the meaning can be others and the word can be used differently, but the most well established meaning behind the word is a question of purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2012 11:36 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2012 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 323 of 353 (648788)
01-18-2012 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by New Cat's Eye
01-18-2012 10:49 AM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
It still remains a mystery as to how are you objectively identifying which questions of purpose are beyond the scope of science and which are not? It seems to be based on some rather flawed notion that science can only legitimately answer questions about things which are directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories.
Straggler writes:
Hold on - Are you seriously claiming that science cannot investigate and answer questions pertaining to individual one-off events? Even if all the data pertaining to that event has been recorded?
CS writes:
You cannot set-up a proper scientific experiment without scientific controls to eliminate the variables and one-off events do not allow for that luxery.
Straggler writes:
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc. This idea of yours that no matter how much data we have science is limited to answering questions about things directly and wholly repeatable in laboratories is nonsense.
CS writes:
I've already told you that I'm distinguishing between laboratory science and general empirical investigation.
If your entire position is based on science being unable to legitimately answer questions about one-off events then you are just blatantly wrong. Science can and does do this.
CS writes:
Straggler writes:
And I'm explaining that the very question being asked is assuming or demanding that a purposeful agent exist for it to have any meaning at all.
I understand that, I just don't care if you think it has meaning.
It isn't about whether I personally think it has meaning you numbskull. It is about the fact the questions of purpose are innately meaningless unless one assumes that there is a purposeful being behind the phenomenon in question.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 324 of 353 (648790)
01-18-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
01-18-2012 12:24 PM


Re: What is the ultimate meaning of life and this thread?
C.S writes:
From dictionary.com:
quote:
reason
noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
So, the reason for declaring war wouldn't be a scientific description of the way that cultures interact, or how the brain makes decisions. It'd be something like "for their oil". It'd be the purpose of the war.
Would it? Why? (For what reason?)
Ironically, if you were looking for underlying reasons rather than perceived reason or purpose, it would be more like your first suggestion. But as humans are involved in that particular example, purpose could certainly be involved in many potential answers. Concentrate on the definition, rather than the random example. Other examples might help. The basis or cause of an explosion in your lab, for example. Or the reason for a traffic accident. Note the word "fact" above, and think about the reason that the sky appears blue, or the basis or cause of the fact that the sun is warm.
But importantly, think about about "basis or cause."
C.S. writes:
Here's the first definition of "why:
quote:
why
adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly?
The primary definition is one of purpose.
??????!!!!!!!
C.S. writes:
The answer to "Why did you behave so badly?" is not a scientific explanation on how the brain causes certain behaviors, nor is it asking about the phycological cause of said behavior. Its asking your purpose behind your behavior.
It's asking for reason, cause or purpose. Some examples of answers that do not include purpose are:
Because I'm a bad tempered sonofabitch. (reason - basis)
Because I was mad. (reason - cause)
Because I was tired. (ditto)
Because I'm suffering from schizophrenia. (reason - basis)
Again, the example happens to concern human behaviour, so there's certainly often purpose.
Because I wanted to make you mad. (that's a reason, and there's an intentional purpose for the bad behaviour in this case).
Topically, because I wanted to troll you. (reason + purpose)
Note that the question is best described as "for what reason did you behave so badly", because that covers all possible answers. "For what purpose" doesn't, because there could be none.
Perhaps the tendency of dictionaries to give examples relating to human behaviour helps to confuse you and RAZD, but even within the world of our behaviour, purpose is only part of the job of the word "why".
When you're looking for the basis or cause of phenomena outside the animal world and the things we make, we have yet to find any purpose, so why automatically deals with its other jobs of asking about reason (basis or cause) when we're being scientific.
C.S. writes:
In that case, I do think he's right: that the proper definition of "why" is a question of purpose.
Think again. The dictionary definition isn't giving you anything improper.
C.S. writes:
Especially when contrasting it against the other interrogatives. Sure, the meaning can be others and the word can be used differently, but the most well established meaning behind the word is a question of purpose.
Probably reason, actually, which pretty much covers the other two. But that doesn't matter. "Proper" means any well established meaning of a word. If you and RAZD are at the basic level of thinking that words only have one "proper" meaning, you've got a lot to learn about language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-18-2012 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 325 of 353 (650426)
01-31-2012 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Straggler
01-17-2012 6:00 PM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
Straggler argues with CS:
Straggler writes:
Whose purpose?
CS writes:
Nobody in particular. I haven't gotten that specific.
Yes. And that's the problem. For the question to have any meaning there must be a purposeful agent must there not? The ambiguity about who this unstated entity might be is what leads to the whole debacle of people insisting that science cannot answer "why" questions. This ambiguity is the root of the problem.
While this whole thread has more or less supported my viewpoint (standing safely some distance from the fairway), I singled out this particular exchange to nail it. Straggler has admitted there is a problem (not necessarily with his view, but with others).....
Consider the recently (at least in my lifetime) outlawed word "inflammable". It was a perfectly good word until the attempts of student citizens to apply rules of English produced a disastrous result: incongruent meant not congruent, incompetent meant not competent, incomplete meant not complete, inoperable meant not operable. Therefore, for some, inflammable meant not flammable - you can hardly blame these persons for the stupidity of the English language! In the end, the decision was made to ban use of the word on trucks & containers and so on. Flammable was perfectly clear enough, walking around on it's own recognizance.
When there is sufficient ambiguity, then perhaps there may be reason to avoid usage of that word. This goes quintuple for the various activities under the umbrella of scientific research.
The issue is whether there is sufficient ambiguity. Now Straggler and bluegenes and Modulous and I and many others here can wade through this ambiguity and dismiss it without a ripple, just like we can connect the dots of tree rings, fossils and all manner of scientific equipment that convinces us of the strength of TOE. But surely we notice there are others here that are so convinced. We have trouble understanding why they are not convinced. How, we ask ourselves, is it that people who do not see that 2+2=4, no matter how many times we try, cannot agree?
This is why (chuckle) the use of the word "why" should be minimized in this particular forum where we know we have a varied and valued array of different participating perspectives.
SIDEBAR from Straggler:
We scientifically investigate the Big Bang, murders which cannot be repeated (the victim is already dead), human evolution from a common ancestor with chimps, Earthquakes which we cannot repeat, etc. etc. etc.
But in fact (!!!) the scientific investigation of these events uses and relies on tests that can be repeated. Fingerprint analysis can be done again. All of the evidence leading to the evolution of homo sapiens can be found again. Echoes of the Big Bang that led to the Theory of the Big Bang can be examined again. Structural analysis of fallen buildings after earthquakes revealing faulty design can be repeated.
Question: What data is it that you think science is inherently unable to obtain such that it cannot answer "why" the person in question did what they did?
Quantum fluctuations of the instantiated mindset at the moment that led Joe to use a bluish yellow in his painting....this is more generally referred to as the deployment of Free Will. Do you, Straggler, believe in Free Will? If we strap all these electrical/chemical/visual detectors using the latest MRI++ advances with Javacationisms about our skulls will we eventually reduce Free Will to Determinism?
Or won't there be - at least ultimately due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself - a point at which this sort of fantasmagorical equipment cannot help you?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2012 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2012 7:31 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 328 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 11:01 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 326 of 353 (650433)
01-31-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by xongsmith
01-31-2012 5:22 AM


More Dualism..........
It has already been pointed out to you that all of the interrogatives have a variety of meanings based on context. Message 274.
There is nothing special about "why" in this respect no matter how much you assert otherwise.
X writes:
I singled out this particular exchange to nail it.
The ambiguity in your example is derived from people insisting on querying purpose whilst refusing to give any indication of whose purpose it is they are seeking. It is like expecting science to address the question "How did it happen?" without specifying what "it" is. Again - The problem has nothing inherently to do with "why" questions.
X writes:
But in fact (!!!) the scientific investigation of these events uses and relies on tests that can be repeated.
And in principle all the physical activity taking place in a brain can be recorded and repeatedly and independently analysed in exactly the same way. You and CS are trying to make human behaviour somehow innately and inherently unable to be scientifically investigated. Presumably because you want to believe we are "special" or something. But there is nothing in principle that makes physical human brains any different from any other physical thing and to insist otherwise inevitably leads to the sort substance dualism jar eventually conceded to.
X writes:
If we strap all these electrical/chemical/visual detectors using the latest MRI++ advances with Javacationisms about our skulls will we eventually reduce Free Will to Determinism?
We are already progressing down that very path. The evidence increasingly suggests that we don't have freewill in the sense that we subjectively seem to have.
See the thread Does Evolution Have An Objective? for more on this.
X writes:
Do you, Straggler, believe in Free Will?
I think freewill (of the sort most people mean) is an illusion.
X writes:
Or won't there be - at least ultimately due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself - a point at which this sort of fantasmagorical equipment cannot help you?
Firstly there is nothing to suggest that quantum effects are particularly relevant to brain activity. Secondly quantum indeterminacy would result in randomness rather than freewill of any meaningful sort. From the Wiki entry on freewill:
quote:
In modern times, J. J. C. Smart has described the problem of admitting indeterminism,
"Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug".
Wiki on Freewill
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2012 5:22 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 9:56 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 3:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 327 of 353 (650441)
01-31-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Straggler
01-31-2012 7:31 AM


Re: More Dualism..........
Hello Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Firstly there is nothing to suggest that quantum effects are particularly relevant to brain activity.
On the contrary there seems to be some research that does in fact relate to QM and the brain.
Quantum mind - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2012 7:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2012 12:40 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 328 of 353 (650443)
01-31-2012 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by xongsmith
01-31-2012 5:22 AM


Re: Whose Purpose Is Being Investigated?
Or won't there be - at least ultimately due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself - a point at which this sort of fantasmagorical equipment cannot help you?
Even then, uncertainty can be expressed as a probability that is derived from first principles. Science does a wonderful job of explaining why nuclei decay, and the probability of a single nuclei decaying over a set time period. The fact that no one can predict which nuclei will decay next, or exactly when a given nuclei will decay, does not negate the explanation.
If there is a quantum-like feature of brain activity then science still does a fine job of explaining why we do one thing and not another just as science does a fine job of explaining why one nuclei decays and the other does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2012 5:22 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 329 of 353 (650447)
01-31-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by 1.61803
01-31-2012 9:56 AM


Quantum Dualism..........?
I’m well aware of the views of people like Bohm and Penrose. But these are either philosophical arguments that effectively amount to dualism with wishful-thinking-quantum-knobs-on or conjectures about deeply speculative aspects of physics. Penrose’s position, for example, is based on the notion that the same as-yet-unknown all encompassing physics that will one day explain quantum gravity will also explain human consciousness. It amounts to a sort of quantum of the gaps argument.
If there is anything concrete on which to base the idea that human brains are non-deterministic I have yet to see it. Certainly it is not the view of the scientific consensus. Link
Link writes:
Phillip Tetlow, although himself supportive of Penrose's views, acknowledges that Penrose's ideas about the human thought process are at present a minority view in scientific circles, citing Minsky's criticisms and quoting science journalist Charles Seife's description of Penrose as "one of a handful of scientists" who believe that the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process.
Pinker on Penrose writes:
Penrose’s mathematical argument have been dismissed as fallacious by logicians, and his other claims have been reviewed unkindly by experts in the relevant disciplines. In fact, the most interesting implication of The Emperor’s New Mind was pointed out by Dennett. Penrose’s denunciation of the computational theory of mind turns out to be a backhanded compliment. The computation theory fits so well into our understanding of the world that, in trying to overthrow it, Penrose had to reject most of contemporary neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and physics!
Beyond the wholly subjective feeling that our minds are not determined by mere physicality is there really anything to suggest that common conceptions of free-will hold any water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 9:56 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 4:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 353 (650472)
01-31-2012 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Straggler
01-31-2012 7:31 AM


Re: More Dualism..........
And in principle all the physical activity taking place in a brain can be recorded and repeatedly and independently analysed in exactly the same way.
But to do that to test why Grandma X chose that particular tea, we'd have to have multiple Grandma X's, or put her in the exact same situations multiple times - which is impossible.
You and CS are trying to make human behaviour somehow innately and inherently unable to be scientifically investigated.
Actually, I wasn't. In fact, I was specifically avoiding it. Re-read my posts without this bias and see if you can make more sense out of them.
Presumably because you want to believe we are "special" or something.
Presuming about people makes you look like an ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2012 7:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 333 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2012 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 338 by Straggler, posted 01-31-2012 4:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024