115
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
115 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8456 readers
131 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Dualists and idealists have theories for where consciousness comes from. It's not just 'an assumption', it has to come from somewhere, usually as a relationship to a deity. Hegel famously does tons of gymnastics for the separation of the conscious self from God, and then the past conscious self from the present and future conscious self with his metaphysical idea of 'becoming'.
Even Descartes has to relate consciousness to God. I think therefore I am doesn't function as an assumption if we don't also assume that what creates our consciousness and perception of consciousness is real and wouldn't deceive us, a pretty bold assumption. And even then we can never actually assume the consciousness of other beings.
For both of these the hand waving begins just as immediately. I agree that IIS theory has a crap ton of issues with it, and that the metaphysical question likely can't be solved physically. That is why I am agnostic on the matter because our best tool for investigation, scientific analysis, is wholly unsuited for that metaphysical question.
I guess I disagree there. There's nothing inherent in the scientific method that binds it to reductive physicalism. There's nothing stopping you assuming consciousness is non physical when formulating your hypotheses. The data may or may not prove you wrong but there's nothing stopping you from applying the scientific method.
I realize dualism and idealism are also unsatisfactory explanations but I see no reason why you wouldn't attempt to do science based on those ideas. I think the dominance of reductive physicalism in science is a cultural artifact more than anything.
In fact it does. The primary problem within the Kantian formation is not one just strictly of logic, but one of category. If we start our basis of understanding in Hume (radical skepticism), then the most we can achieve is the categorical imperative, actual truth is within those things that cannot contradict themselves (now we know from Marx and Hegel tha reality is in fact full of these contradictions, but I think that has more to do with our actual proximity to truth rather than a refutation of Kantian logical presumptions).
In particular, Kant supposes that the categories of physical and meta-physical, are oppositional and distinct categories. The Is and the Ought. The physical deals with the finite and consequential, while the meta-physical deals with the infinite, unconsequential and immortal. We begin in immediate contradiction. While deriving an is from an is and an ought from an ought is trivial, deriving an is from an ought is perilous and deriving an ought from an is is also hazardous. While the scientific method has proven to be particularly good at deriving physical is's it's ability to 'prove' oughts is tenuous at best. The best we are able to achieve is comprehensive theories about 'oughts' based of tested and retested data of 'is's', cold piss in comparison to an ought coming from pure logic. Especially, when it comes to ethics.
But the problem is that there is still no actual methodology to prove an is from an ought. The closest thing that has been shown logically is (ironically enough) Hegel's dialectical idealism, and it's partner, of course, dialectical materialism. Clearly there is something going on in processual dialectics for it to reveal so much truth in contradiction, but the science of it is far too young to say at this point.
If we can find a way to do that, then we can prove both is's and ought's from backwards-forwards logic and solidify their connection. However, at this point in time, proving the properties of the metaphysical from the properties of the physical is likely an errand for fools.