metacristi
Registered Senior Member
Canute
No unbiased scientist claim that the computational emergentist approach is true in absolute,only epistemological assumptions are made.In other words from all empirical evidence available now,the computationalist approach is the best we could achieve nothing more,there is no claim that we know the 'ultimate',ontological,nature of consciousness.
Because the emergentist approach is the only that can be labeled scientific (in spite of still having a lot to explain) being 'theoretically progressive' (as Lakatos coined the term in the philosophy of science) [edit to add]and experimentally progressive-all new experiments 'confirm' the crucial importance of the links between neurons[/edit] it's clear that all scientists have to accept that it is the best we could achieve so far.Even those who are skeptical about the computational emergentist approach recognize this,that's why they try to propose credible scientific alternatives.Not successful so far,even 'quantum consciousness' hypotheses are too weak, sketchy,and cannot be labeled scientific...not a big surprise therefore that many scientists prefer to 'work' within the current paradigm.Of course all scientists,skeptics or not,accept the 'epistemological privilege' of the scientific method: it is our best tool to make sense of the observed reality,repetable intersubjective experiments are the 'highest authority' that can make the difference between internally coherent alternative scientific hypotheses.
This is the crucial point where you disagree not only with me but with all respectable scientists and philosophers of science.I'm afraid you should propose a better method to find the truth of natural facts if you make the positive claim [amounting to the fact that all rational people,you and me included,are compelled to think the same;anyway at least that your position has epistemological privilege] that consciousness cannot be understood by science or that the computational approach is incorrect.If this is only your (entirely subjective) philosophical position,your current subjective preference there is no problem;I do not consider rational a belief implying ceritudes however.If otherwise,if you claim that your position has epistemological privilege,I'm afraid you have no rational base for that no matter whether you 'work' within the scientific method or not.The attempt to prove the computational emergentist hypothesis as being internally incoherent has not succeded: there are good explanations within the currently accepted paradigm for all objections raised in the 'zombies','Mary's chamber' or 'Chinese room' arguments.I'm afraid only experiments can settle the problem in a sound manner
No unbiased scientist claim that the computational emergentist approach is true in absolute,only epistemological assumptions are made.In other words from all empirical evidence available now,the computationalist approach is the best we could achieve nothing more,there is no claim that we know the 'ultimate',ontological,nature of consciousness.
Because the emergentist approach is the only that can be labeled scientific (in spite of still having a lot to explain) being 'theoretically progressive' (as Lakatos coined the term in the philosophy of science) [edit to add]and experimentally progressive-all new experiments 'confirm' the crucial importance of the links between neurons[/edit] it's clear that all scientists have to accept that it is the best we could achieve so far.Even those who are skeptical about the computational emergentist approach recognize this,that's why they try to propose credible scientific alternatives.Not successful so far,even 'quantum consciousness' hypotheses are too weak, sketchy,and cannot be labeled scientific...not a big surprise therefore that many scientists prefer to 'work' within the current paradigm.Of course all scientists,skeptics or not,accept the 'epistemological privilege' of the scientific method: it is our best tool to make sense of the observed reality,repetable intersubjective experiments are the 'highest authority' that can make the difference between internally coherent alternative scientific hypotheses.
This is the crucial point where you disagree not only with me but with all respectable scientists and philosophers of science.I'm afraid you should propose a better method to find the truth of natural facts if you make the positive claim [amounting to the fact that all rational people,you and me included,are compelled to think the same;anyway at least that your position has epistemological privilege] that consciousness cannot be understood by science or that the computational approach is incorrect.If this is only your (entirely subjective) philosophical position,your current subjective preference there is no problem;I do not consider rational a belief implying ceritudes however.If otherwise,if you claim that your position has epistemological privilege,I'm afraid you have no rational base for that no matter whether you 'work' within the scientific method or not.The attempt to prove the computational emergentist hypothesis as being internally incoherent has not succeded: there are good explanations within the currently accepted paradigm for all objections raised in the 'zombies','Mary's chamber' or 'Chinese room' arguments.I'm afraid only experiments can settle the problem in a sound manner
Last edited: