Science does not explain correlations as identities. An unscientific a priori bias does.
Excellent, because I have been claiming over and over again that the proper way to discuss this issue is to realize that there are no actual correlations. This point just keeps sailing over your head, doesn’t it?
Here again, ladies and gentlemen, Faustus proudly presents....the definist fallacy!!! The definist fallacy is all about claiming identity where consistent and demonstrable experience sees difference.
This is just more question begging rubbish from you. That’s okay, I’ve learned that your side in this debate can’t do any better. That’s why your ideas are so marginalized in the sciences.
It is about "not admitting" difference while actually seeing it. It is about admitting only the difference in terminology (language games). It is a form self-denial. A denial of difference in one's own experiences.
I’m just denying that your understanding of the issue is coherent and supported by science. It is neither.
You unwittingly even accept it is your "contention" that there are not "two distinct properties". This only reinforces the fallacy -- i.e. preferring a contention/conjecture/claim over actual immediate experience. You experience different properties first but try very hard to explain them away a posteriori.
I’ve already explained why it just seems as if there are two different properties. You have yet to even attempt to rebut my explanation.
Keep pounding the table and asserting what you know you can’t prove. All it does is expose the poverty of your position.
Cognitive neuroscience, let alone your angst-impregnated ramblings on this thread, have not offered a shred of evidence to support the claim that it is in fact only one and the same experience when people have subjective experiences and when people also make neurophysiological observations of the brains of the people having these experiences.
Actually, it has offered quite more than a “shred” of evidence. I can’t help it if all you can do is cover your eyes and ears and yell “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA”. That’s entirely your problem.
Yet even so, they are not identical.) What cognitive neuroscience has shown is a bunch of correlations with these two kinds of experiences.
Oh, look, you’re begging the question again. Aren’t you ever going to figure out that no one is going to fall for this crap, ever?
I'm sorry, but cognitive neuroscientists do not get to rewrite science, let alone lecture others better versed in science what scientific explanation is all about.
Actually, cognitive neuroscientists get to do whatever they feel is valid science, and internet nobodies who object to their claims can sit on the sidelines with their noses pressed up against the glass, merely observing and making a lot of noise that no one will ever pay attention to.
The burden of proof is not on the one stating the obvious.
You aren’t stating the obvious. You merely think you are.
All you are defending is a pre-scientific, incoherent picture of what the mind is and how science would explain it.
The very fact that you would write the following is proof positive that you haven’t the slightest clue how science should address consciousness:
However, this epistemic gap would be positively bridged the very moment the neuroscientists can read the thoughts and experience the sentiments of their subjects by virtue of their instrumentation. Until then, sweet dreams my darling.
Honestly, I’m quite confident that anyone who ever attempted to teach you something about the philosophy of science would just be embarrassed knowing a student of theirs wrote something so ridiculous in public.
This claim is exactly as inane and absurd as the claim that models of thunderstorms are wet and cause wind, and for exactly the same reasons. Think about it.
It is only the unscientific bigot (pretending a scientist) that consistently and seriously claims that subjective experiences and neurophysiological observations have de facto been proven identical.
In the real world, the hypothesis that consciousness is neurophysiological is uncontroversial, at least among scientists. I know this vexes you to no end, but most of us who look at the data and haven’t had our minds polluted by a priori commitments to dualism don’t think it’s even a remarkable claim.
Coming from one who has been citing Dennett with a vengeance. What's suddenly so wrong when I am, in my turn, cutting and pasting, and actually showing it's a quotation?
No where in this thread have I ever cut and pasted anything from Dennett. I’ve paraphrased him a couple times, that’s it. I think you’ve probably brought him up more than I have.
The definist fallacy is a very real fallacy and not a virtue by any measure. It rests on the epistemic preference of experience over theory.
No, it rests upon ideology over facts.
If consistent and repeatable experience shows difference in the nature of experience (subjective experiences and neurophysiological observations), to claim, as a brute fact requiring no persuasive explanation, that these distinct classes of experiences are identical is unscientific and irrational.
It would be if in fact there wasn’t an enormous body of scientific and philosophical literature showing that conscious experiences are neurophysiologic in nature. Sorry if you don’t understand any of it.
Again, I’ve already explained to you why the difference is only apparent. You have yet to even attempt to address my explanation. Why is that, I wonder?
In the case of your identity materialism, we only have an unreasoned claim, advanced as a brute fact, which runs diametrically counter to the best evidence available for any human being -- consistent, repeatable and immediate experience.
If this were true, then why is your position the minority one (by your own admission, earlier!) and why is what I’m defending the bland, uncontroversial statement of what most scientists who study the mind believe follows from the evidence?
Do you even have the slightest self-consciousness about how you look raging against scientific consensus without actually citing anything scientific?
The irony is that the proponent of this kind of utterly unscientific dogmatism keeps on blazing with a saliva-foaming mouth being a great scientist while having the nerve to brand the critics of such evident dogmatism as unscientific zealots.
I’m certainly no scientist, but it is certainly true that people who oppose a scientific consensus without recourse to actually citing any science come off as unscientific zealots. No doubt about that.
Finally, as to the appeal to the failure of vitalism which you offered as an analogy (outworn, mind you), I will brighten your day by cutting and pasting a response from your wet-dreams beloved -- David Chalmers:
Doesn’t matter. You already lost the debate regarding the work of Chalmers when you made the mistake of quoting his fatal admission that in the end, the difference between him and his opponents boils down to intuition.
Science trumps intuition every day of every week. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Since the arguments on both sides are degenerating into mechanical repetion of earlier positions, and since we have started to drift into an endless cycle of snides and counter-snides, I have no reason to continue wasting my time on this thread.
With less than kind regards,
Then why did you post anything at all?
Ladies and gentlemen, let this thread stand as a testament to the reason why dualism is no longer considered a live and serious idea by those who study the mind. Because LilWabbit literally showed us the best they can offer, and, well, it ain’t much.