/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6050368
So, we get this picture: I have one brain act which is the idea “all mental acts are brain acts.” Then, there is another brain act which is the belief that that idea is correct. And, somehow, I get yet a third brain act which is the knowledge that the belief is true. Notice that in each subsequent case we are saying that something physical is somehow related to something else physical in a way that is not easily described: Neurons of the idea are related to neurons of the belief, which is in turn related to the neurons of knowledge. What is this relation? I can think of no word for it. Perhaps we shall call it Magic.
But Magic has a problem. Physical things act according to physical laws. So, if it is the case that all mental acts follow physical laws (due to their nature of just being things in the brain), then the very formation of the idea “mental acts are brain acts” was the result of a physical process. It happened because some groups of neurons or chemicals or whatever connected in a certain way. They could have connected in any number of ways to form any number of ideas. But they formed this idea. Then some neurons connected to form the belief in the idea. Then the real magic happened when some neurons came together to make the belief knowledge. But since these are purely physical acts, occurring as a result of the laws governing physical things, those brains which have the neurons making the belief “all mental acts are brain acts” just have those neurons because of the accident of where the neurons were.
That being the case, what prevents neurons from causing us to believe things which are false and yet ascribing the notion of “knowledge” to those beliefs? The neurons that used to cause beliefs about the sun orbiting the Earth can’t be distinguished from the neurons causing beliefs about the Earth orbiting the sun.

>>6050379
The reply that we can verify it through observation won’t work: You may believe that observation means something, but that belief is just neurons that came together haphazardly. Their relevance is as valuable as the neurons that make up the belief in geocentrism.
And the neurons that make up the belief in geocentrism then turn out to be as good as the neurons that make up the belief “all mental acts are brain acts.”
In other words, to say “all mental acts are brain acts” is to speak incoherently. There is no way to ever get from neurons to reality. And since neurons are real, there is no way for the brain acts to even get to themselves.
For this reason, philosophers reject the claim that mental acts are brain acts. It is a claim that, if true, can’t be discovered scientifically because, if true, science doesn’t guarantee any true beliefs.

>>6050383
Science, does not, in fact guarantee any true beliefs and your professor is a fucking moron. There has been decades of epistemology and analytics over this exact same point.

See: Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by jonathan Dancy


Tell your prof to suck my superior intelectual cock

What the fuck is this drivel?

Can you guys remind me again how philosophy is even considered an academic subject? It's an entire discipline revolving around making shit up that's so subtly ignorant of factual evidence that it's just too tiring to begin to argue with

>>6050410
No, that is pop-phy, just like pop-sci and pop-anything in the hands of the uneducated and limited.

The book I suggested is the best summary of the debate as it is today, and it covers scientificism.

>>6050415
what the fuck is scientficism

the whole point of science is that it's not something you believe in, it's not an -ism it's based on evidence.

your professor sounds like a kant.

>>6050420
How fucking dull brained can you be?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

I know this is just another manifestation of the hubris all sophomores experiment, but please try to understand that there are axioms, assumptions, premises, on which the scientific method is foundeed and have implications in epistemology (the kind of axioms that once ignited the debate about truth/models).

>>6050415
>>6050393

OP here, how would you respond to my professor's statement, if at all? What are your personal beliefs on the subject? You seem like a well-read anon.

As a disclaimer, I have already gone through my period of militant atheism and getting analpained about people "not believing in science". I've gotten over it, and I acknowledge that my post may be heading toward euphoria, but I am not opposed to agreeing with my professor if anyone here can explain it better.

>>6050433
That guy isn't me. I understand that science fundamentally doesn't claim to guarantee any truths.

>>6050368
FUCK YOU, THERE'S NO SOUL, YOUR MISERY IS ALL YOURS, YOU'RE A LOSER, DIE OR DARE, YOU SON OF A BITCH!

>>6050440
Two things, I am not a militant atheist and I am nowhere near being a "HURRR SCIENCEEEE" faggot like the idiot who posted above.

For me to give you an answer I'd have to read, re-read, and think about what he said. There is only one problem, your professor doesn't know about the tl;dr on 4chan, so please don't ask me to go through it seriously, I just skimmed.

If anything, read the book if you're interested and ignore your professor, there is no need to account for his opinion (not in right now anyways) so you might just as well look past it and start from scratch.

I can only say the all forms of dualism or phenomenology/idealism are fundamentally flawed in the same way Descartes was, none have given a solid proof of how this "ghost" interacts with matter, ie how does your "conscience" make your brain actually work?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/


I can say though that

>>6050452

ignore last sentence

>>6050368
Excluding the fact that he said "soul" which is a rather ambiguous term, this email seems no worse than the average /sci/ post.

What he is saying is pretty much correct if he would accept that our thoughts are triggered by chemicals and other atoms. To be fair, we can't be sure, but its quite damn likely even if atoms were hypothetical.

>>6050486
but if every aspect of every thought was triggered by chemicals and atoms, then how would the soul be separate from the brain?

>>6050368
>I'm a college freshman
>in my philosophy class
>raised a disagreement

Pro Tip: It's a philosophy class Mr. I just graduated from high school, so GROW UP. You will never win an argument against a philosophy professor. If I were you, I'd be seriously considering why I'm in a college that requires philosophy for a first year student, why I chose to take philosophy if it is not required, and depending on the answers to those two questions, why I am such a complete idiot--HINT: GROW UP and eventually you'll get it.

>>6050508
Bingo, that is the flaw in dualisms and its variations, specially those that defend the mind as epiphenomenons of brain activity.

>>6050368
What in the fuck are you talking about?
Like what the fucking shit are you talking about?
Fucking shit what are you talking about?

Philosophy isn't learned in a classroom you retard
Philosophy isn't learned

Yes I am mad but because of all the words which disassociate philosophy
w t f

>>6050368
>philosophy class

I have taken Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Knowledge just to fill blocks on my timetable. My trust fund stipulates that I take at least four courses.

What's your excuse? It was nice to sandwich something easy in between different Calculus classes.

>>6050368

>tl;dr
>u cannot know nuthin'!

>>6050368
>Presumably, the brain acts that correspond to beliefs would not be the same sorts of brain acts that correspond to knowledge

it falls apart here, I think. Not all beliefs constitute knowledge, but you could argue that all knowledge is still something you believe. Maybe not, but there's no clear distinction here. There is the interesting question about knowing what knowledge exactly is, but that's just the whole brain in a jar argument, really

>>6050587
what is know?

OK See if your professor can answer this riddle:

Q: What's the most important part of an internal combustion engine?
A: The space for the reaction to take place.

The first person perspective is what science denies the existence of. Perspective is what you experience as reality. The thoughts aren't important, they're just content. The perspective - the space where the experiences arise - is important. Why do the neurons of one body cause experiences to arise in this perspective and not another body?

After all, you can't claim any body belongs to you. Because every body claims to belong to themselves.

>>6050368
>philosophy class the professor

Condolences on going to a university that's so bad that dualist savages are allowed to teach classes.

>>6050716
>Why do the neurons of one body cause experiences to arise in this perspective and not another body?
Sometimes they do.

>>6050763
Such as?

>>6050379
wow, this guy is actually an idiot.

>>6050428
heheheheh

>>6050410
this guy just seems to be there to impress the undergrads

>>6050420
what the fuck is google?

>>6050440
Your professor's argument is worthless, so it should be rejected as such. He seems not to understand how the physics of the brain works. Mind you, that's not a counterargument, but the entire thing deserves to be ignored. It is based on fallacies and simply getting the facts wrong.

The gist I got out of that email was "muh complex brain functions are more intricate than anything and therefore rationality must be operated via a third-party because nothing can be coincidental and that complex at the same time"

By similar logic, gravity must work by the grace of magic fairy dust, since it is so complex and unexplained.

>I have one brain act which is the idea “all mental acts are brain acts.”

Ok.

>Then, there is another brain act which is the belief that that idea is correct.

Ok.

>And, somehow, I get yet a THIRD brain act which is the knowledge that the belief is true.

What? No? How is this any different to the second brain act? What's the difference between the idea being "correct" and the idea being "true"?

Without this assumption that there is this "third kind of brain act", the rest crumbles.

>That being the case, what prevents neurons from causing us to believe things which are false and yet ascribing the notion of “knowledge” to those beliefs?

Assuming that there is such a "third brain act", evolution? If we believed mostly false things we'd probably die pretty quickly. Our senses have to be feeding us mostly accurate information in order to function in the world and have a decent chance at surviving in it.

But there's a bigger issue with this argument, and that is, the same question applies to an immaterial soul: how does the immaterial soul know that things are true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

Also there's an even bigger issue: it's logically possible that the very argument that's being put forward is based on this presumably faulty logic. In other words, you can't use some possibly faulty logic to argue that your own logic may be faulty. To do so would be to contradict yourself.

>The neurons that used to cause beliefs about the sun orbiting the Earth can’t be distinguished from the neurons causing beliefs about the Earth orbiting the sun.

Why not? There would be a different pattern of brain activity for each of these beliefs, therefore you could distinguish between them.

>For this reason, philosophers reject the claim that mental acts are brain acts.

No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjbdCib70LA

>I have one brain act which is the idea “all mental acts are brain acts.”

Ok.

>Then, there is another brain act which is the belief that that idea is correct.

Ok.

>And, somehow, I get yet a THIRD brain act which is the knowledge that the belief is true.

What? No? How is this any different to the second brain act? What's the difference between the idea being "correct" and the idea being "true"?

Without this assumption that there is this "third kind of brain act", the rest crumbles.

>That being the case, what prevents neurons from causing us to believe things which are false and yet ascribing the notion of “knowledge” to those beliefs?

Assuming that there is such a "third brain act", evolution? If we believed mostly false things we'd probably die pretty quickly. Our senses have to be feeding us mostly accurate information in order to function in the world and have a decent chance at surviving in it.

But there's a bigger issue with this argument, and that is, the same question applies to an immaterial soul: how does the immaterial soul know that things are true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

Also there's an even bigger issue: it's logically possible that the very argument that's being put forward is based on this presumably faulty logic. In other words, you can't use some possibly faulty logic to argue that your own logic may be faulty. To do so would be to contradict yourself.

>The neurons that used to cause beliefs about the sun orbiting the Earth can’t be distinguished from the neurons causing beliefs about the Earth orbiting the sun.

Why not? There would be a different pattern of brain activity for each of these beliefs, therefore you could distinguish between them.

>For this reason, philosophers reject the claim that mental acts are brain acts.

No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjbdCib70LA [Remove]