Quote:
Originally Posted by Malodrax
But we don't know what that way is. We simply know that we're conscious... how energy/matter manifests itself as such... is not known at the moment.
|
You claim we don't know what way in which we are conscious, and then in the same breath claim that we know we're conscious. Consciousness implies consciousness of
something(s), which in turn, implies consciousness of something(s) in
someway. For instance, I am conscious of my surroundings via my sensory input and my cognitive reasonings. My sense perceptions and cognitive faculties are
the way in which I am conscious, and my surroundings are
what I am conscious of. Thus, to claim that we don't know in what way we are conscious, is contradictory to the claim that we know we're conscious.
Quote:
|
Also we can't test for consciousness [in] another non-living forms of energy/matter.... so the fact that we "can't observe" consciousness in non-living matter is irrelevant...
|
Irrelevant for what purpose? Certainly not for the purpose of evaluating which inductive claim is stronger. Yet again, that we do not fully grasp the mechanics of a process, is ultimately irrelevant for determining which of two inductive claims are weaker or stronger.
Quote:
|
you're basically saying we know X exists under conditions Y... but we can't test for X under conditions not Y... regardless X likely only exists under conditions Y. This is one of the reasons i'm not a big fan of induction
|
More simply: "We only know X exists under conditions Y. Probably, X exists universally under conditions Y."
Yes, this is basically what I'm saying.
Here is your argument: "X exists under conditions Y. We do not know how X works. Probably, X exists under condition Z."
Your conclusion argues from ignorance, mine argues from observation. Regardless of whether you like it or not, induction is a tool of cognition -- and one that we use all the time in daily life. And I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but despite not being a fan of it, you
are relying on inductive reasoning in your arguments.
Quote:
I disagree... i think that the induction that consciousness is probably limited to living beings is a VERY weak one. I say this because living beings are only one configuration of energy/matter out of many and we don't have the ability to make any meaningful observations of consciousness OR non-consciousness in non-living energy/matter.
Why? because a) we don't have a physical mechanism for consciousness b) we can't interact with those energy/matter to test for consciousness.
|
If you are unable to make meaningful observations of consciousness in non-living entities, then you are refuting your own arguments, because you then have nothing to support your inductive reasoning. You cannot make the positive claim that consciousness can exist in non-living entities, if you have no meaningful observations with which to support the claim.
Quote:
|
I don't think we have more sensory or rational evidence...
|
I disagree -- assuming you're referring to which is a stronger induction. We perceive all conscious entities to have common, physical attributes -- e.g. faculties of vision, of tactile sensation, of cognition, etc. And these physical attributes of conscious, living creatures are instrumental to consciousness -- e.g. sight, touch, smell, etc.; they are conscious of reality in these respects. Without the physical attributes (e.g. eyes, central nervous systems), no such intangible processes would occur; with diminished physical attributes, such intangible processes will be diminished as well (e.g. diminished eyes leads to diminished vision and in that respect, diminished consciousness). This principle is supported by observation: For instance, when a person goes blind or deaf, they are no longer conscious of reality in such respects.
Thus, there is a series of observed relationships between attributes of living entities that are instruments (i.e. facilitators) of consciousness, and the identification of reality (i.e. consciousness) in those respects. I have sensory and rational evidence to purport the inductive claim that: if any consciousness exists, it
probably exists as the process of identification via a living entity, that has the very capacity to perceive and conceive reality to begin with.
Quote:
|
if we only know that X exists under conditions Y ... then i don't think it's rational to say that X "probably" only exist under conditions Y.
|
I disagree. To claim that a condition is probably required for a phenomenon on the basis of observations of such phenomena, and in no conflict with evidence to the contrary, is not irrational at all.
Quote:
|
I'd argue that such an argument is appeal to ignorance since it rests on what you don't and can't know at the moment.
|
Incorrect.
I am not saying "Premise A is not known to be true.
Therefore, Premise A is false."
Nor am I saying "Premise A is not known to be false.
Therefore, Premise A is true."
Rather, I am saying: "Premise A is known to be true.
Probably, Premise A is universally true".
Arguing from what is
not known is not the same as arguing from what
is known.
Quote:
Watch:
we only know and observe X existing under condition Y.
There is no evidence that X exists under condition not-Y.
Thus it's likely that X exists only under condition Y.
This argument does NOT work if a) We don't really understand (on a physical level) what X is; how it formed?; what mechanisms define its existence?; what are its limits etc b) we don't have a reliable way of actually testing/observing whether or not X can exist under conditions not-Y.
|
I simply disagree -- we are talking about purely inductive, probabilistic reasoning here. Replace the variables with the process by which wine comes from grapes, and assume we are debating a similar argument, except in the ancient times. It doesn't matter that we don't know the finer mechanisms (e.g. unicellular organisms eating and crapping) by which this process takes place. What matters is which inductive claim is stronger or less weaker?:
A) Probably, wine only comes from grapes.
B) Probably, wine can come from stones.
Even if we never lived to find out how grapes
actually produce wine under the right conditions, it wouldn't matter for the purpose of determining -- on the basis of available, empirical and rational evidence --
which of the two claims is stronger.
Quote:
For example lets apply this same induction to some other scenarios:
A)
"we only know and observe life existing under condition of the planet Earth.
There is no evidence that life exists under condition not-planet earth.
Thus it's likely that life exists only under condition of the planet earth"
Obviously a dubious conclusion since we don't really have a good way of observing the VAST majority of the universe... there are virutally infinite number of galaxies and planets so perhaps the chances of life existing in other planets is in fact pretty high.
|
A weak induction, indeed -- considering all that we know. But that isn't the induction that I would make. Rather, here is what I would induce:
1) We observe life arising on Earth under certain conditions.
2) Probably, life exists under similar conditions in other planets.
For the truthfulness of my induction, I am relying on supporting evidence. What you have done, is relied on the
lack of support for a contrary/contradictory claim. A proposition's truthfulness depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not on the absence of any such support for contrary/contradictory claims. Likewise, you repeat the same error in the following counterexamples:
Quote:
B)
"we only know and observe universe existing under exponentially expanding conditions.
There is no evidence that [the] universe existed under non-exponentially expanding conditions.
Thus it's likely that the universe was always exponentially expanding."
this conclusion doesn't even make any sense since the universe was infinitely dense at the big bang and any previous state of matter would NOT be an exponentially expanding one.
|
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, if you insist on using the middle proposition as support for your claim.
Quote:
C)
"We only know that matter existed after the big bang
There is no evidence of matter existing prior to the big bang
Thus its likely that nothing existed prior to the big bang"
Another dubious conclusion because we don't have the ability to test and observe the pre-big bang states
|
Again, argument from ignorance -- as you specifically refer to a
lack of support or evidence, as proof of a claim.
Quote:
D)
All known and observed conscious beings required necessary conscious causes in order to come into existence.
There is no evidence for an existing conscious being springing into existence without pre-existing conscious causes
Thus it's likely that all conscious beings required pre-existing conscious cause"
(thus contradicting your induction that consciousness only probably exists in living beings?)
|
Your first premise is questionable to say the least, and depending on how you're using your terms, is probably begging the question. Your second premise is incorrect, and as such, your conclusion does not follow. And yes, this still commits the same fallacy as the above three arguments: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Now, if you were to take all arguments you've crafted above from A through D, and eliminate the intermediary contradictory/contrary statements that you purport to support your arguments by their lack of evidence or support, you then have correct examples of arguments that I follow: An argument that relies on evidence
for the claim, and not on an absence of evidence for some contrary or contradictory claim. That is legitimate, inductive reasoning.
Quote:
But we don't know if there is any other condition in the universe that is identical to here...
We don't know if life could exist in conditions that are not totally earth-like...
We don't know if life on other planets would have the same pre-requisites and make up as life on earth.
|
Irrelevant. What we do know, is that there
exists a planet Earth with such conditions. On the basis of this, in relation to contemporary knowledge, we may make many valid, inductive inferences, e.g. that there probably is another Earth-like planet somewhere out there.
Quote:
|
we have zero evidence for life on other planets.
|
Depends on what you mean by evidence. There are statistics that support the likelihood of Earth-like conditions occurring with some degree of frequency.
Quote:
|
yet we still can't claim that life likely doesn't exist in non-earth planets. Why? because we know we are alive?
|
It would certainly be a
weaker induction to claim that life exists on non-earth planets, because we have no empirical evidence to support such a claim (as far as I know).
Quote:
|
This is why the induction-derived conclusions regarding these topics are dubious.
|
Dubious as you may think they are, it is then simply your task to assess which is the least dubious. Because the fact is, you cannot escape induction. I, for one, think my inductive reasoning regarding consciousness as an attribute of living entities as quite strong.
Quote:
|
The point is that we can't weight which inductive claim is stronger.
|
Most certainly we can -- it's a simple matter of assessing which has more empirical and rational basis.
Linear Mode
