Suppose we take the dubious step of playing metaphysics and asserting that there is "something" called consciousness, which is "immaterial". Where has that taken us? How are we more enlightened about reality than we were before? Does all this mean that precious monism is dead, or merely that hardcore materialism bites the dust, and that there is one substance that we shouldn’t call “material”? Hmm, is there one type of "fundamental substance", or more? And what is the immaterial “something” that is consciousness made of - is it even a “thing”, or can’t we call it a “thing”? And is it a thing-in-itself? Am I becoming enlightened yet? The spoon still won't bend.

All of this, and without one valid scientific theory that can predict anything! Here we can see that science is interesting, constructive, and useful… while metaphysics is none of the above.

Matthew Shute wrote:Where has that taken us?

Gumball City. They got relegated last season, tho. Their GD was something like -835. They couldn't bend their penalty kicks any more than they could bend any spoons. A buncha straight shooters, I calls 'em.

Matthew Shute wrote:Suppose we take the dubious step of playing metaphysics and asserting that there is "something" called consciousness, which is "immaterial". Where has that taken us?

On its own this has taken us to the point where new types of question become askable.

How are we more enlightened about reality than we were before?

Not much. The really important questions are really about causality, not "what sorts of thing exist". In other words, we need to know the causal relationship between the immaterial and material entities before we have made any important claims about reality.

Does all this mean that precious monism is dead, or merely that hardcore materialism bites the dust, and that there is one substance that we shouldn’t call “material”?

The latter.

Hmm, is there one type of "fundamental substance", or more? And what is the immaterial “something” that is consciousness made of - is it even a “thing”, or can’t we call it a “thing”? And is it a thing-in-itself? Am I becoming enlightened yet? The spoon still won't bend.

As I said...it's all about causality.

All of this, and without one valid scientific theory that can predict anything! Here we can see that science is interesting, constructive, and useful… while metaphysics is none of the above.

Rather an unfair comparison. You didn't give metaphysics much of a chance before dismissing it.

orpheus wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I didn't say that absolutely no progress is possible. There is very likely some physical brain structure which needs to be there and working in order for consciousness to be produced, and it is possible we will one day discover what it is. This will not solve the hard problem - it won't tell us what consciousness "is". But it might, for example, give us a better idea about what point in evolutionary history the first consciousness animals appeared.

(bold mine)

If you're willing to acknowledge that there's a lot we don't yet know about what the brain does and its workings, how can you make the blanket statement that brains are necessary but insufficient for consciousness?

Because the problem is to do with the concepts of "matter" and "consciousness". It doesn't make any difference how much we learn about the workings on the brain, we already know we aren't going to suddenly discover that brains have non-material components. The problem is set up by the way we have to define and use the word "consciousness" and the way we use the concept of matter. It therefore has nothing to do with current scientific/technological limitations.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

orpheus wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I didn't say that absolutely no progress is possible. There is very likely some physical brain structure which needs to be there and working in order for consciousness to be produced, and it is possible we will one day discover what it is. This will not solve the hard problem - it won't tell us what consciousness "is". But it might, for example, give us a better idea about what point in evolutionary history the first consciousness animals appeared.

(bold mine)

If you're willing to acknowledge that there's a lot we don't yet know about what the brain does and its workings, how can you make the blanket statement that brains are necessary but insufficient for consciousness?

Because the problem is to do with the concepts of "matter" and "consciousness". It doesn't make any difference how much we learn about the workings on the brain, we already know we aren't going to suddenly discover that brains have non-material components. The problem is set up by the way we have to define and use the word "consciousness" and the way we use the concept of matter. It therefore has nothing to do with current scientific/technological limitations.

But we don't have to find non-material components. Just as we don't have to find "forward speed" in an examination of the workings of a car.

UndercoverElephant wrote:The really important questions are really about causality, not "what sorts of thing exist". In other words, we need to know the causal relationship between the immaterial and material entities before we have made any important claims about reality.

In other words, all the tinfoil hat stuff. No spoons have been caused to be bent. What has been caused is a bunch of people running around spouting woo. Perhaps you think that's a "good" thing. When you can find some way dependably to keep people from slaughtering each other over patches of more or less productive soil, we'll all dig our spoons in.

The secret's in the sauce.

Because the problem is to do with the concepts of "matter" and "consciousness". It doesn't make any difference how much we learn about the workings on the brain, we already know we aren't going to suddenly discover that brains have non-material components. The problem is set up by the way we have to define and use the word "consciousness" and the way we use the concept of matter. It therefore has nothing to do with current scientific/technological limitations.

It has nothing to do with anything that is not made up whole cloth. Getting people to adopt a different definition of "consciousnessness"? What inquiring minds want to know is...

orpheus wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

orpheus wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I didn't say that absolutely no progress is possible. There is very likely some physical brain structure which needs to be there and working in order for consciousness to be produced, and it is possible we will one day discover what it is. This will not solve the hard problem - it won't tell us what consciousness "is". But it might, for example, give us a better idea about what point in evolutionary history the first consciousness animals appeared.

(bold mine)

If you're willing to acknowledge that there's a lot we don't yet know about what the brain does and its workings, how can you make the blanket statement that brains are necessary but insufficient for consciousness?

Because the problem is to do with the concepts of "matter" and "consciousness". It doesn't make any difference how much we learn about the workings on the brain, we already know we aren't going to suddenly discover that brains have non-material components. The problem is set up by the way we have to define and use the word "consciousness" and the way we use the concept of matter. It therefore has nothing to do with current scientific/technological limitations.

But we don't have to find non-material components. Just as we don't have to find "forward speed" in an examination of the workings of a car.

OK..a clarification. First, I originally argued this in response to a claim by somebody else - the claim that brain damage causing mind damage justifies the belief that brains produce consciousness. I don't have to make any "blanket statement" that brains aren't sufficient in order for this refutation to work - I just have to show that it is possible. However, I am also saying that if we accept that consciousness exists and give it a subjective definition then it can't ever be explained in terms of matter. This is inevitable as soon as you give it a subjective definition.