The problem with science II

Condolences?Please expand, although I think I know where you are going with this...

My impression is that the term "qualia" was coined by philosophers with views somewhat similar to your own. They wanted a term to express something that they thought (and argued) could never be explained by science.T. Nagel, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?", Philosophical Review 83, 435-450 (1974). I don't recall that Nagel uses the term "qualia" but he does argue for the position I have suggested.Frank Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia", The Philosophical Quarterly 32, 127-136 (1982). He argues for the position you favor. He has since then changed his mind about it.David Chalmers, "The Conscious Mind: in search of a fundamental theory", Oxford University Press 1996. Chalmers does use the term, and argues for a kind of dualism (property dualism), but you would consider him too much of a reductionist.These are well known in the literature, and I'm sure you can google them to find out more than you ever wanted to know.

I feel I work from both sides towards the middle. Reductionism is a neccesary effort of analysis to be pushed until it fails but I don't think it is sufficient nor the "truth". It's a tool and a powerful tool.On the other hand there is the world I actually experience and respond to and that has a primary "reality" that gives it a fundamental quality. I couldn't be talking about any of this, couldn't be creating concepts or reductionist explanations without consciousness.So I work a bit on each side of this chasm seeing if I can narrow it, trying to discover a bridge or connection between them. I intuit that they are different aspects of the same reality but that is all I can say at present.lfenEdited by lfen, : decide "different aspects" was a more accurate word choice than "different sides" and so changed to that.

There's actually some pretty strong evidence that we'll soon have the ability to enhance our mental abilities (whether ethics will allow it any time soon is another story) if you're interested. However, remember that I'm trying to figure out why it's absurd for science to explain human nature. Medical science has come a long way from performing prefrontal lobotomies to let the demons out, and has identified the root to many neurological dysfunctions. It's also a very young science relative to others, so to me it would seem more absurd to already place limits on its potential than to have a little optimism. I wonder if any neurosurgeon would agree with this? I wish you were a little more open-minded. Countless people owe their lives to our understanding of the brain. In the dark-ages, people with mental problems would generally come out worse after seeing a doctor. If we didn't make any attempt to understand the brain, we would undoubtedly still be there.

The term "epiphenomena" gives me the heebeejeebies for instance. The stuff of all human history, all experience, all thought, all art, is reduced to the epiphenomena of physical processes, and only in the last century or so, because of the overvaluation of science.

You so totally belong to the Science side of this two cultures thing I'm trying to talk about, that you just don't have a clue what I'm trying to talk about. I haven't said anything against studying the brain, just against reducing human experience to it.

I won't be counting the chickens before they have hatched. I agree that there is nothing absurd about it. It is a valid problem for scientific study. Sure. But this mostly has to do with hormones, neuro-transmitters, etc. That is, it is physiology and biochemistry. It doesn't get to the issues that trouble Faith. Perhaps not. Time will tell whether their optimism is justified.Alan Turing's famous paper on machine thinking was published in 1950. A lot of resources have been put into AI research. We still don't know how to design a machine that can think.

Don't let the term bother you. You should use it as a barometer. As long as cognitive scientists are talking about epiphenomena, you will know that they have not solved the problem of accounting for experience and are instead attempting to find a way of dismissing it (i.e. evading the problem).

I want you to be less arrogant. My opinions aren't just some completely arbitrary and narrow-minded views that I cook up for no other reason than to disagree with you. They are the product of objectively analyzed phenomena, both sides being thoroughly explored for the purpose of a greater understanding. Do not assume that I have no clue what you're talking about just because I completely disagree. I've heard and considered many arguments on your side, and have even seen evidence to support it, which is something you tend to avoid when replying to me. If it is your hope to persuade anybody who has a firm enough belief in something to argue it in depth, you will need to provide evidence. And if you think that it is at all easy to argue unemotionally about what you've proposed, then you're completely wrong.As for your conclusion, you absolutely have said something against studying the brain scientifically. You denoted the attempt made by science to understand human nature as absurd. What do you think human nature is? Is emotion part of human nature? Happiness? Sorrow? Love? Hate? Altruism? Misanthropy? Do you really believe that science has no capacity to find what these trace back to? Do you have any idea how complex something can become given an extremely limited set of elements and rules?Considering your arguments I have made an assumption about you, and I pray to God that you tell me that I'm wrong. My assumption is that you refuse to attempt an objective understanding of science, despite a meager knowledge of it. You only see science as it fits into your indoctrinated belief system, and have lost the ability to remain openminded, making you conceited.

What's great about Anna K. is that you have a clear idea of all the characters, and you sympathize with all of them--despite all their flaws.

If science can explain that stuff, which is possible, then my nihilism is looking more and more accurate.

And I stand by that. You haven't grasped Word One of anything I've said and I've given up talking to you. By the way, your personal speculations are out of order.

Yeah, even the liberals. Quite a genius, that Tolstoy.Oh, and the nihilists.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's this harrowing scene in Part 5 (I think) when Levin's brother dies. It's one of those scenes that you are glad you read but would not want to read again. But my own view is that Tolstoy's vision is religious, in some sense.This is what you get out of some novel that is worth reading--a window on the world that is different from one's own. You get to look at life differently. How horrible it would be to always look at life from your own window.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I can't assume what you mean, only examine what you write. By refusing to give any concrete clarification of what you mean, I have no choice but to argue against your conclusions, which are extremely speculative. My personal speculations are in response to a personal attack, and were meant for the purpose of prompting you to explain yourself. If you want to give up and learn nothing from this, then it is of course your choice. I, however, find this tragic because it was my goal to understand your logic, not to dissuade you from your position (which I've been told is impossible).(Just a personal question: You're a female, correct? I only ask because my mom gives up talking to me for the same reason )