Shock revelation: philosopher says that the description of the world should include more philosophy; scientist thinks you're better off with science.

@tamasmoll2922

4 ай бұрын

science is also a language like Esperanto based on a common agreement which is constantly evolving every physical or mathematical formula can be translated to Spanish to French to German energy equals mass to the speed of light its simplified forms are only but still human thought conceptual reality construction speculations

@Thomas-gk42

3 ай бұрын

He´s not a philosopher, he´s a crackhead.

I don't always agree with Goff, but he's absolutely right here. The scientific method entails *0* metaphysical assumptions. Empiricism is the observation of how reality *behaves* not what reality *is*. That's where ontology comes in. Science can-and should-inform these questions, but it's not alone sufficient to make these kinds of judgements. That is to say, as powerful a tool as science is, acknowledging its limitations is crucial to using it properly. A hammer is an invaluable tool for the carpenter, but one who uses it to try to cut their boards is gonna have a bad time.

@Existentialist946

4 ай бұрын

Yes, absolutely.

@Thomas-gk42

4 ай бұрын

He´s boring preacher, not a philosopher, but if he talks with real scientists, it becomes ridiculous.

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language.

@jamesfrancese6091

4 ай бұрын

The scientific method involves 0 metaphysical assumptions? Are you familiar with the Quine-Duhem thesis?

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

@@jamesfrancese6091 Depends on what you mean by metaphysics. In the broad colloquial sense of just some sort of philosophical assumption, of course it requires those to work in practice. But that's not how the term is used in the literature, which tends to refer to _a priori_ beliefs. Positivism does not require any _a priori_ assumptions.

there is a consciousness without language that language cannot articulate about which I have no words, so where does language come from and what is consciousness outside of language, what is it that we can even have an idea about

@vids595

4 ай бұрын

You dont think 6 month olds are conscience? Dogs? Of course there is consciousness without language, this seems obvious.

@consciouscactus

4 ай бұрын

maybe we should come up with the words for it then

The description is not the described.

Does someone have link for the letter of the philosophers and scientists?

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, therefore consciousness cannot itself be an abstract concept. (Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness) (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using adictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea, and not an actual physical entity. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective abstract concepts and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). In other words, emergence is nothing but a cognitive construct that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes, and cognition itself can only come from a conscious mind; so emergence can never explain consciousness as it is, in itself, implied by consciousness. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Marco Biagini

Consciousness as information is software, the body is material as hardware, the carriers and cosmos of brain functions and biochemistry are just like the universe, the meeting of information and energy is the material itself, consciousness is the working data, the information in some energy construction is all hardware

@alext5497

4 ай бұрын

Word salad

@tamasmoll2922

4 ай бұрын

Exactly for example what is language

@leosphilosophy

4 ай бұрын

I am unsure where you are able to discern the difference between mind and matter. Could you zoom in on the line that supposedly splits the two and explain it to me?

@tamasmoll2922

4 ай бұрын

this is exactly the question at least 2500 years ago. information shapes energy, this is how matter is formed, and matter cannot exist without energy or information. if I take the energy out of it, it is no longer matter, and if I take the information out of it, not even then. so the joint presence of the two is necessary for the material. in the same way, it is impossible to separate matter and spirit, if there is no object, the subject is also impossible, and so on, of course, it is only a suggestion

I agree with her about structure of science

strong emergence, whatever you mean by it is weak emergence. sorry. the reason is rather simple, it is that the properties of a constituent is not independent on what environment it is subjected to, a sail doesn't pull with no wind kind of a thing. so if you showed there was such a thing as strong emergence, that would not make any sense without changing the behavior of the constituents in that context, and that is then the behavior of the constituents as much as the ensemble. if you, don't accept that as weak emergence you are basically saying that any physical law entails strong emergence. i do not agree that there is strong emergence, because the concept doesn't make any sense, it has to be defined into being by defining the constituents properties in one regime and then any change from that in a different environment has to be counted as the ensemble changing the constituents, but that misses the point that the properties of the constituents is what creates the ensemble that changes their properties. even such a thing is weakly emergent, it is only strong emergence if it happens by magic or something, whenever there is an explanation in terms of the configuration of the constituents having the observed effects, it is weak emergence. i don't like the term, because there is only one kind of emergence that actually exists, which is weak. weak emergence is the behavior found in the configuration space of states, you can't write down an example of emergence that isn't that, it is just in my opinion a little bit of confused language. given that strong emergence is no different from that, i fail to see how any such thing could explain anything by other means than magical imagination, i dont mean to be harsh i am just concerned that we are going to end up inventing new forms of assuming our conclusions by talking about strong emergence.

@leosphilosophy

4 ай бұрын

I am inclined to agree with you. It seems that strong emergence, as you have described it, comes from the malpractice of 'physics in a box', that is, things can be separated from their environment and still be accurately studied. This is absurd, obviously, as we never find things distinct from environments. In my view this is quite simply because the distinction between objects/things and environments is a consequence of fragmented thinking. They're the same phenomenon. So weak emergence is might simply be a description of structures and patterns seen from a distince so great that the constituants are no longer visible. Then when we zoom in we ask: "how did those tiny bundles of energy create a tiger?" A tiger is not strongly emergent from atoms, a tiger is a pattern of atoms, which are themselves resonant vibration - the nature of the universe. Does it sound like we're on the same page?

@audiodead7302

4 ай бұрын

Agreed. I think strong emergence is an illusion caused by complex chains of causality. A affects B affects C affects A (again). And that causality can appear to flow up and down the levels of emergence. But it is still just just one constituent affecting another.

@Thomas-gk42

4 ай бұрын

You´re a voice of reason, thank you.. That chap is a babbler, not a serious philosopher. "strong emergance" and "panpsychism" aren´t even philosophy or religion, but pseudoscience.

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language.

What does emergence mean in this context? Not a native speaker

Wittgenstein

At this point, I think that science can't really inform philosophy. As I understand it, quantum mechanics can only be understood in mathematical terms, so what's even the point in speculating on matters which can't be conveyed properly to the speculator?

What I think is that Consciousness is a dependent phenomenon it's depends on another beings only one being cannot be Consciousness about its self .

@leosphilosophy

4 ай бұрын

Consciousness is dependent on what?

There is no final concluson---left "hanging in the air"

Didn’t like the dynamic between panelists, and moderator seemed to push his own agenda. The whole discussion was messy, without asking the core question on the topic: do you - panelist - believe that there are underlying universal laws (models) that apply at different scales/ contexts, or each scale/ context has its own laws/ models? And why you the panelist believe that. When asked about emergence Suchitra basically refused to answer on the basis of usefulness of the question, which I think is fair, but also did not provide grounds to clearly say why she believes (as I think she does) that there can be no universal law (model) that applies on different scales and contexts. The only argument she used was that we are currently not able to use fundamental laws to compute a drop of water. She continued that if we would - that would be reality (how come? Is modeling two electrons with solutions to fundamental equations reality?). The fact that we cannot compute does not mean fundamental laws stop applying after a specific scale or in a specific context. The fact that at those scales or in those contexts we use approximation models does not make fundamental models obsolete. That’s why they are called fundamental. Philip’s position on strong emergence is weak, he presented no strong grounds to consider it. It is more defended as a personal belief, which - as long as stated that way - I respect as fair.

We measured gravity waves in 2015; now we have gravity telescopes. .. There is a gravity spectrum.

Have they solve the measurement problem yet or are they just coming up with new non-verifiable ways to hand wave away consciousness causing collapse?

@leosphilosophy

4 ай бұрын

It's impossible to solve the problem created by viewing reality as purely objective, by use of more objective thinking. So yes, wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man

@MC_heart4

4 ай бұрын

@@leosphilosophy who is viewing reality though? I thought consciousness does not Exist

The title and the video content do NOT match. Sure, these words were used but the bulk of this content does not even attempt to answer the question(from the title).

Just because Goff knows that his wife is in pain does not mean that consciousness is of a different nature from the rest of reality. Not having a specific definition of consciousness makes considerations useless. A mathematical model of reality is still just a model. Reality can be anything and this has nothing to do with humanity being able to find the mathematical model that most closely matches reality. He seems to mix everything up and not draw any conclusions. It is not easy to save the soul if one seriously looks at reality.

@careyjamesmajeski3203

4 ай бұрын

Very sensible reflection here. Couldn’t agree more.

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language. Look up his beetle in a box argument and his rule-following problem. It's just not even possible for "I'm in pain" to actually refer to some intrinsic inner state. Your point about it not having a definition is necessary for idealist philosophy, because if idealists ever define what consciousness means concretely then we can begin to explain it with the scientific method. The moment they drop "consciousness" and ask about intelligence or self-awareness suddenly it's something that can be studied, but they are always intentionally vague just appealing to emotional feelings around the word "consciousness," kind of like if a person said, "science can tell us exactly how the plant works, all the chemical reactions going on inside it, but cannot tell you anything about what it means to be _alive!"_ There are certain emotional connotations around the word "alive" and so you could keep vaguely asserting that no scientific description captures this emotional essence so there must be some sort of additional "life energy" that is unexplained by science. Goff does the same thing when he makes emotional appeals to "when I say my wife is in pain."

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language. Look up his beetle in a box argument and his rule-following problem. It's just not even possible for "I'm in pain" to actually refer to some intrinsic inner state. Your point about it not having a definition is necessary for idealist philosophy, because if idealists ever define what consciousness means concretely then we can begin to explain it with the scientific method. The moment they drop "consciousness" and ask about intelligence or self-awareness suddenly it's something that can be studied, but they are always intentionally vague just appealing to emotional feelings around the word "consciousness," kind of like if a person said, "science can tell us exactly how the plant works, all the chemical reactions going on inside it, but cannot tell you anything about what it means to be alive!" There are certain emotional connotations around the word "alive" and so you could keep vaguely asserting that no scientific description captures this emotional essence so there must be some sort of additional "life energy" that is unexplained by science. Goff does the same thing when he makes emotional appeals to "when I say my wife is in pain."

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language. Look up his beetle in a box argument and his rule-following problem. It's just not even possible for "I'm in pain" to actually refer to some intrinsic inner state. Your point about it not having a definition is necessary for idealist philosophy, because if idealists ever define what consciousness means concretely then we can begin to explain it with the scientific method. The moment they drop "consciousness" and ask about intelligence or self-awareness suddenly it's something that can be studied, but they are always intentionally vague just appealing to emotional feelings around the word "consciousness," kind of like if a person said, "science can tell us exactly how the plant works, all the chemical reactions going on inside it, but cannot tell you anything about what it means to be alive!" There are certain emotional connotations around the word "alive" and so you could keep vaguely asserting that no scientific description captures this emotional essence so there must be some sort of additional "life energy" that is unexplained by science. Goff does the same thing when he makes emotional appeals to "when I say my wife is in pain."

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Wittgenstein already debunked the entire basis of Goff's argument: private language. Look up his beetle in a box argument and his rule-following problem. It's just not even possible for "I'm in pain" to actually refer to some intrinsic inner state. Your point about it not having a definition is necessary for idealist philosophy, because if idealists ever define what consciousness means concretely then we can begin to explain it with the scientific method. The moment they drop "consciousness" and ask about intelligence or self-awareness suddenly it's something that can be studied, but they are always intentionally vague just appealing to emotional feelings around the word "consciousness," kind of like if a person said, "science can tell us exactly how the plant works, all the chemical reactions going on inside it, but cannot tell you anything about what it means to be alive!" There are certain emotional connotations around the word "alive" and so you could keep vaguely asserting that no scientific description captures this emotional essence so there must be some sort of additional "life energy" that is unexplained by science. Goff does the same thing when he makes emotional appeals to "when I say my wife is in pain."

Consciousness is language inside your mind or speaking it.

@sewoh100

4 ай бұрын

What do you define as language?

@amihart9269

4 ай бұрын

_"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is a secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life...The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognize it as the distorted language of the actual world and to realize that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life...the whole problem of the transition from thought to reality, hence from language to life, exists only in philosophical illusion, i.e., it is justified only for philosophical consciousness, which cannot possibly be clear about the nature and origin of its apparent separation from life."_

@ricardopineda8224

3 ай бұрын

Language is a set of signs that is duly regulated and whose purpose is to communicate ideas between two people. One call is the sender and another is the receiver of the signs emitted. There are many types of languages, everyday language is a meta-language from which other specialized languages ​​such as mathematics, sign language or Braille, among many others, are derived.

How is matter fundamental when that matter is only known through consciousness??? Consciousness comes first, so it is fundamental. Matter emerges from CONSCIOUSNESS. Where is the evidence you ask... Dream is the evidence that consciousness can make up matter.

@amihart9269

4 ай бұрын

_Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. That's also not evidence.

@achyuthcn2555

4 ай бұрын

@@amihart9269, What is evidence?? Who is the one experiencing the external and internal world??

@amihart9269

4 ай бұрын

@@achyuthcn2555 There is no external and internal world. There is just the world.

@marktunnicliffe2495

4 ай бұрын

Are you claiming that the universe doesn't exist if humans are not there to observe it?

@achyuthcn2555

4 ай бұрын

@@marktunnicliffe2495 I'm saying that matter is made of consciousness.

Oh the eternal struggle of a lesser complex thing trying to engulf/know/understand trough its limitations a much bigger thing.. Comedy at its finest 😂😂😂. How about approaching this the other way around? Let reality know and understand what you are.

Daniel Dennett and Robert Sapolsky will be extremely mad to hear it. 😅

Can you be it without being able to explain it?

@paulonius42

4 ай бұрын

Yes. Obviously.

@bjchorny

4 ай бұрын

@@paulonius42 obvious? Apparently...

@paulonius42

4 ай бұрын

@@bjchorny Yes, it is obvious. Humans are conscious. We can't explain it. I'm tired right now despite a healthy diet and a good night's sleep. I can't explain it. Perhaps you are trying to ask something that isn't in your question. As worded, your question has the obvious answer I gave you.

@bjchorny

4 ай бұрын

@@paulonius42 i'm not being obtuse, just wondering how failing to perceive might limit ability to be...at any rate, get some rest and restore your blood-chemistry

@paulonius42

4 ай бұрын

@@bjchorny I apologize for the rudeness in my tone. It was not intended, but sometimes my wording comes out callous and unpleasant. I'm working on it. :)

Bit of a useless discussion. It is a straw man argument and one over semantics rather than a respectful conversation on the topic.

he just moves his hands in circles a lot as proof of his nonsense. Sorry doesn't carry water.

@namero999

4 ай бұрын

Not a fan of Goff, but it's not like the other speaker kept hers still.

@jmaily

4 ай бұрын

True, but she also says things through her mouth that make sense.@@namero999

@Existentialist946

4 ай бұрын

I move my hands a lot when talking, and I never talk nonsense.

@audiodead7302

4 ай бұрын

One of the panellists farted. Goff was just trying to circulate the air to get the smell away from him.

@Thomas-gk42

4 ай бұрын

He´s just a ridiculous babbler and prayer, not even a philosopher.

This guy is cunning, he tought, since I´m too stupid for physics and math, I´ll become a philosopher, there I can earn a lot of money just by preaching a bit meaningless blabla.