A scientific and logically coherent view of reality

[Speakpigeon]

Philosophy of science...

Here is the argument that DBT posted today:

Here's the correction;

Premise 1 - For all we know, somebody's conscious mind may be the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Premise 2 - What somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain;
Conclusion - Therefore both somebody's conscious mind and what somebody does is determined by the state of a group of neurons in this person's brain.

Easy as that.

For context, please refer to https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ded-by-our-conscious-mind&p=637060#post637060

DBT claimed this argument to be logically valid.

I let you assess for yourself this claim.



For myself, I think DBT's logical quandary here is representative of the flawed conception of the natural world that most people, and most scientists, too, apparently, entertain as their default conception. This is in evidence every time people describe different physical properties or phenomena, say A and B, in terms of A being "responsible" for B, or B "emerging" from A.

This notion of emergence is conceived as something different from the notion of causality, whereby A causes B, for example the temperature causes the explosion of a container. The concept of causality between A and B implies a delay between A and B, with A coming first. The notion of emergence of B from A requires that A and B exists concurrently at the same time.

This suggests that the emerging property B non only exist but is something different from A, in effect B is conceived as something else entirely than what it is emerging from. So this notion of emergence has the ontological implication that phenomenon B is somehow distinct from phenomenon A, and that therefore we have the two phenomena A and the emergent B existing concurrently at the same time.

What DBT says here, also shows that he conceives of whatever is emerging as not causally effective, as if there would be the causal world at the rock-solid bottom of reality and the causally ineffective world of emergent phenomena at the ethereal top. So, in effect, this is a rather convoluted ontology but also a dual ontology. There are things that exist, emergent properties, that have no physical properties. Hence, this is a dualism. Is that what scientists want?

There is of course another way to conceive of emergence, which may be described as epistemological. Phenomena exist but they are the appearance of something else. So, water as we can observe it in everyday circumstances is just the appearance of a group of H2O molecules... Well, not quite since a molecule is only the appearance of a group of atoms... Well, not quite since an atom is the appearance of a group of elementary particles etc. So, we end up not really claiming we know any of the real things that exist. We just postulate theoretical concepts, such as quarks and energy etc. as operational concepts that we use to predict the appearance of things, and we leave it at that, pleased with the result of our prediction.

This would be fine until you consider the problem of how to fit the consciousness, subjective experience etc. in that tableau of appearances. This is what leads people like fromderinside to assert bluntly that the mind is a place-holder, an illusion etc. This logically leads to admit you are unable to assert the existence of anything. Appearances are what the mind experiences during observations or else it is nothing. So, science can be seen as an epistemology where something is known but nothing knows it.

So, is there anyone anywhere capable of articulating a logical coherent view that would be compatible with current science?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

I am the center of the universe. Reality revolves around me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My pleasure, as long as you can't argue shit.
EB