Scientists cutting into a living brain and finding the interface points, brains doing physically impossible computational feats, physical systems behaving differently in the presence of brains. Hard to say more than that in the absence of specific predictions.
I gave a prediction in my other comment. Do you agree that the continuing absence of a substantive reductive theory, or even an adequate approach to a reductive theory, of phenomenal consciousness is (weak) evidence against reductionism? If so, do you consider it (weak) evidence for dualism?
Also, not all dualists are substance dualists. Chalmers doesn’t believe that brains are getting signals from some non-physical realm.
Chalmers has been declared silly in an Eliezer article somewhere on here; I agree with it completely, so just read that instead.
Regarding evidence: in fact, I’ll go the other way around, and say that the brain is a triumph of reductionism in progress. Starting from when we thought the brain was there to cool the blood, and we had no idea where reason happened, the realm of dualism has only gotten smaller; motor control, sensoric processing, reflexes, neuronal disorders disabling specific aspects of cognition—the reductionist foundation for our minds has been gaining strength so predictably that I’d call a complete reductionist explanation of consciousness a matter of when, not if.
You failed to count all the myriad aspects of minds that have reductionst explanations. Consciousness is what’s left.
You failed to count all the myriad aspects of minds that have reductionst explanations. Consciousness is what’s left.
I don’t see how this alters the claim that the continuing absence of a reductive theory of consciousness is evidence against reductionism. Counting all the myriad aspects doesn’t change that fact, and thatt’s the only claim I made. I didn’t say that the continuing absence of a reduction has demonstrated that reductionism is false. I’m only claiming that Pr(Reductionism | No Reduction of Consciousness available) < Pr(Reductionism).
I think the existence of the Bible is evidence for Jesus’s divinity. That doesn’t mean I’m discounting the overwhelming evidence telling against his divinity.
Fair enough. I just think that seen in the context of the human mind, so far the evidence in general comes down fairly solidly on the side of reductionism, so I wouldn’t recommend clinging to consciousness as the dualist liferaft in the metaphorical reductionist storm.
Scientists cutting into a living brain and finding the interface points, brains doing physically impossible computational feats, physical systems behaving differently in the presence of brains. Hard to say more than that in the absence of specific predictions.
I gave a prediction in my other comment. Do you agree that the continuing absence of a substantive reductive theory, or even an adequate approach to a reductive theory, of phenomenal consciousness is (weak) evidence against reductionism? If so, do you consider it (weak) evidence for dualism?
Also, not all dualists are substance dualists. Chalmers doesn’t believe that brains are getting signals from some non-physical realm.
Chalmers has been declared silly in an Eliezer article somewhere on here; I agree with it completely, so just read that instead.
Regarding evidence: in fact, I’ll go the other way around, and say that the brain is a triumph of reductionism in progress. Starting from when we thought the brain was there to cool the blood, and we had no idea where reason happened, the realm of dualism has only gotten smaller; motor control, sensoric processing, reflexes, neuronal disorders disabling specific aspects of cognition—the reductionist foundation for our minds has been gaining strength so predictably that I’d call a complete reductionist explanation of consciousness a matter of when, not if.
You failed to count all the myriad aspects of minds that have reductionst explanations. Consciousness is what’s left.
I don’t see how this alters the claim that the continuing absence of a reductive theory of consciousness is evidence against reductionism. Counting all the myriad aspects doesn’t change that fact, and thatt’s the only claim I made. I didn’t say that the continuing absence of a reduction has demonstrated that reductionism is false. I’m only claiming that Pr(Reductionism | No Reduction of Consciousness available) < Pr(Reductionism).
I think the existence of the Bible is evidence for Jesus’s divinity. That doesn’t mean I’m discounting the overwhelming evidence telling against his divinity.
Fair enough. I just think that seen in the context of the human mind, so far the evidence in general comes down fairly solidly on the side of reductionism, so I wouldn’t recommend clinging to consciousness as the dualist liferaft in the metaphorical reductionist storm.