Looking below the surface

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Re: Looking below the surface

Post by met » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:19 am

Since the question seems to be whether the knowledge of consciousness' physical basis is sufficient for assuming that the unexplained aspects of consciousness can also be explained that way, I wonder ...um, I wonder what exactly?

Perhaps, if it would necessarily be clear whether or not some new discovery with strong explanatory power fitted the description of a 'physical process' or not? :shock: & if it wasn't, as seems not unlikely, then what? Endless definitely debates?

Is there a hardcore-enough definition of what would constitute a empirical or physical process and what wouldn't (in terms of this context) in the first place?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Post by Jim B. » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:52 pm

met wrote:Since the question seems to be whether the knowledge of consciousness' physical basis is sufficient for assuming that the unexplained aspects of consciousness can also be explained that way, I wonder ...um, I wonder what exactly?

Perhaps, if it would necessarily be clear whether or not some new discovery with strong explanatory power fitted the description of a 'physical process' or not? :shock: & if it wasn't, as seems not unlikely, then what? Endless definitely debates?

Is there a hardcore-enough definition of what would constitute a empirical or physical process and what wouldn't (in terms of this context) in the first place?
Welcome back, met! :D It's been a while. Those are real good questions. There might not be two different kinds of "thing" but two different kinds of understanding or construction. Chalmers might say that a physical process has to do with extrinsic qualities, relational qualities and a mental process has to do with intrinsic qualities. The two kinds of understanding are gotten at through understanding the different kinds of properties involved.

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Post by met » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:04 pm

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Since the question seems to be whether the knowledge of consciousness' physical basis is sufficient for assuming that the unexplained aspects of consciousness can also be explained that way, I wonder ...um, I wonder what exactly?

Perhaps, if it would necessarily be clear whether or not some new discovery with strong explanatory power fitted the description of a 'physical process' or not? :shock: & if it wasn't, as seems not unlikely, then what? Endless definitely debates?

Is there a hardcore-enough definition of what would constitute a empirical or physical process and what wouldn't (in terms of this context) in the first place?
Welcome back, met! :D It's been a while. Those are real good questions. There might not be two different kinds of "thing" but two different kinds of understanding or construction. Chalmers might say that a physical process has to do with extrinsic qualities, relational qualities and a mental process has to do with intrinsic qualities. The two kinds of understanding are gotten at through understanding the different kinds of properties involved.
Q: is 'intrinsic' the same thing as 'irreducible'? [i.e. in a more continental parlance] Almost seems to me like it would have to be.....

& if not, what's the diff?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts:1445
Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Looking below the surface

Post by Jim B. » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:35 pm

met wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Since the question seems to be whether the knowledge of consciousness' physical basis is sufficient for assuming that the unexplained aspects of consciousness can also be explained that way, I wonder ...um, I wonder what exactly?

Perhaps, if it would necessarily be clear whether or not some new discovery with strong explanatory power fitted the description of a 'physical process' or not? :shock: & if it wasn't, as seems not unlikely, then what? Endless definitely debates?

Is there a hardcore-enough definition of what would constitute a empirical or physical process and what wouldn't (in terms of this context) in the first place?
Welcome back, met! :D It's been a while. Those are real good questions. There might not be two different kinds of "thing" but two different kinds of understanding or construction. Chalmers might say that a physical process has to do with extrinsic qualities, relational qualities and a mental process has to do with intrinsic qualities. The two kinds of understanding are gotten at through understanding the different kinds of properties involved.
Q: is 'intrinsic' the same thing as 'irreducible'? [i.e. in a more continental parlance] Almost seems to me like it would have to be.....

& if not, what's the diff?
Yeah, it would be irreducible, especially from the perspective of external relations...There's always the possibility that what's 'physical' could be expanded to include intrinsic qualities but then it wouldn't be physical the way the word's used now and has been used up till now.

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Looking below the surface

Post by met » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:04 pm

So I guess there's a question whether the scientific establishment agreeing to include "intrinsic" qualities in a description of the physical could in itself uncover anything really new or not?

Almost seems like such a move couldn't uncover any new "facts", not using a concrete or scientific def of "fact" anyway, so it could only be a result of as conceptual revolution, which is what you suggested above ..... altho it would be a paradigm shift that could lead to new or different grounds for further empirical investigations once accepted. But it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that could be originally EXTRACTED from extrinsic experiments, as there seems an irremediable difference in terms and basic assumptions? This suggests that the physicalist-only paradigm will have to first be exhausted (or, perhaps in an equivalent sense if we agree with Planck's famous comment, that the current generation of consciousness investigators will have to die off ... ;-) )

.... seems like we agree quite a lot here -- but, well, these were the basic issues running thru my brain ... or, um, "mind".....as I perused you guys's exchanges on this thread....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply