« first day (4377 days earlier)      last day (623 days later) » 

01:38
@AmeetSharma This Wikipedia article is a good follow up to the argument from queerness. It also has a similar sort feel to it as illusionism, and is analogous to it. It says if you can explain moral beliefs by evolution, you no longer need other explanations such as, "because they are true", or "because they come from God". Illusionism says that if we can explain our beliefs (or utterances if you prefer) about consciousness by something other than the existence of consciousness, then you can
dump the explanation that says that we believe in consciousness because consciousness is real. It has no force anymore.
An evolutionary debunking, sometimes referred to as an evolutionary debunking argument or evolutionary debunking thesis, is a philosophical argument which holds that, because humans (like all organisms) have an evolutionary origin, the principles of ethics and morality that we have devised are invalid and cannot be considered objective knowledge. Proponents of such arguments argue that they refute, or at least cast doubt on, moral realism and/or theism. However, critics have argued that these arguments are themselves invalid. == References == == Further reading == Hanson, Louise (2 December 2016...
Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. It is the idea that the majority of mental states in folk psychology do not exist. Some supporters of eliminativism argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. The argument is that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level. Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual...
I don't agree with Wikipedia that illusionism is a type of eliminative materialism. They are related though. Frankish has said he is an illusionist and therefore not an eliminative materialist, because the latter says that consciousness is (or will likely turn out to be) as meaningless as a demon that causes mental illness, or a crystal sphere that holds a planet. Illusionism on the other hand, says Frankish, does not go so far, and retains a lot of folk psychology, while reinterpreting
some of it.
02:44
"
In a rather cursory search, I have not tracked down where Frankish says there's no such thing as phenomenal experience," I am pretty sure I have heard him say that there is no such thing as phenomenal consciousness.
@ARaybould "Academics sometimes forget this when they write for a general audience." So true. I think it's sometimes called the curse of knowledge.
@AmeetSharma "Ok, we doubt first person experience... so why don't they doubt science?" I guess science is done by a community in the final analysis. Only what everyone in the community can reliably detect is said to be real.
First person experience is an individual making claims about something no one else can see, or measure, or detect in any way. It's no more credible than someone saying, "God told me X, Y, and Z".
The man's (and, it usually is man's, it seems) utterance is scientific data, but God's alleged statement isn't, and neither is the alleged experience of seeming to hear it.
Hope that helps.
 
19 hours later…
21:50
If we are comparing vitalism and "qualiaism" to coin a term, it's worth knowing the (surprising to me, for one) details of vitalism. Especially surprising to me is the multitude of eminent scientists like Pasteur who argued for vitalism.
"Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) after his famous rebuttal of spontaneous generation, performed several experiments that he felt supported vitalism. According to Bechtel, Pasteur "fitted fermentation into a more general programme describing special reactions that only occur in living organisms. These are irreducibly vital phenomena."
Vitalism is a belief that starts from the premise that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things." Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark," "energy," or "élan vital," which some equate with the soul. In the 18th and 19th centuries vitalism was discussed among biologists, between those who felt that the known mechanics of physics would eventually explain the difference between life and non...
Note the sentence, "Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark," "energy," or "élan vital," which some equate with the soul."
@AmeetSharma I think it's very natural to equate a life force with a soul. Life force, soul, qualia, they are very similar.
22:06
Here's another quote from the article:"Vitalism has become so disreputable a belief in the last fifty years that no biologist alive today would want to be classified as a vitalist. Still, the remnants of vitalist thinking can be found in the work of Alistair Hardy, Sewall Wright, and Charles Birch, who seem to believe in some sort of nonmaterial principle in organisms.[20]"
22:19
You can't prove that there isn't a life force, just as you can't prove there isn't a God. Likewise, you can't prove that there is no such thing as a quale. So is qualiaism "not even wrong"?

« first day (4377 days earlier)      last day (623 days later) »