Why is logical positivism frowned upon?
>>917448
because scientists are not good philosophers and philosophers are not good scientists
>>917448
On the contrary, it is praiseworthy.
>>917448
Because it dismissed the role of qualia in philosophy of mind. We all know qualia exists because we all experience it and can talk about it. Yet it's not observable and therefore logical positivism would dismiss it. That's how you end up with behaviorism/functuanalism/physicalism. Some epiphenomenalists will argue that qualia are just a shadow of the mind and have no causal role. Yet when you see your wife cheating you experience anger, a qualitative state, and may act on impulse.
>tl:dr
>logical positivism is bad because it dismisses the existent but unobservable phenomena
>>917579
Eh. The older I get the more I believe in materialism and reductionalism.
As in... If it cannot be observed, then there is a large chance it does not exist.
That doesn't exclude that things we do not know of or things we cannot currently observe does not exist.
But rather, if it cannot ever be observed then it does not ever exist. Period.
>>917448
Idealist butthurt, basically.
>>917579
>We all know qualia exists because we all experience it and can talk about it.
I was raped and it is true because other people experience it and I can talk about it!
>>917585
But what about qualia? You can observe it through ostension but that's not reliable and Wittgenstein pointed out that we couldn't talk about it due to not knowing what one term means for someone else, forgive the generalized private language argument. However we do know of qualia and it is very certain all of us experience various forms of it- even psycopaths feel pain, which is a form of qualia. Reductionism simply states pain=c-fiber firing, which is true, however it doesn't account for complex qualia.
Honestly, the best theory I've read was Sydney Shoemakers theory. He states that there is the representational content- the objective tree you look at, then there is also phenomenological content, which is also objective and is between the object and your perception, and finally there is the subjective content that is individual to you- the qualia. This theory provides for most accuracy in regard to objectivity of physical observable universe, and accounts for qualia. It's compatible with materialism as it's clearly states qualia originates within your perceptual senses.
>>917616
>Reductionism simply states pain=c-fiber firing, which is true, however it doesn't account for complex qualia.
Only because philosophers have no idea bout electronics and digital circuits.
>>917594
Everyone experiences qualia but not everyone experiences rape.
Also if you've been raped, you've experienced a collection of events that many others have not experienced, and just as someone who may see an extra color, you know more than we do. Rape results in qualitative experiences. However most of the people that have been raped experienced a certain kind of pain, and therefore that specific qualia is a form of knowledge only they know.
So yea if you've been raped, spill it faggot, I wanna hear the qualia you experienced.
>>917616
Everything that exists is reduced to atoms and its interaction with the universe.
Ideas are nothing but chemical reactions and various electrical states within humans.
The states of chemical interactions exist resulting in consciousness, but the ideas and hypothetical philosophies do not.
In essence qualia is simply a biochemical construct held but either one or many human beings.
That exists. However, the actual qualia does not.
This is the biggest argument that Strong AI will happen eventually.
Because we are all atoms and the soul is basically simply atoms being self aware, then if you were to simulate those atoms then a machine could also become self aware.
The states of atoms can be observed. What those atom states crate as information also exists. However, what that information refers to simply does not exist unless it also has atoms or energy that can be observed.
>>917621
Reductionism was based on scientific explanation. I dislike reductionism because it doesn't account for subjective experiences that aren't non-causal. Reductionism oversimplifies things to the point where they don't entail the full picture.
>>917585
Well, then you really shouldn't start your paragraph off with "I believe". That's something that can't be observed.
>>917634
In theory if you knew all the states of atoms in my brain, you could in theory know whether or not I believe something or not.
>>917624
Another theory I entertain is that we are like the computer, well the computer is actually like us.
Our body is the hardware- the temp sensors, the brain is the processor, the circuits are the nerve fibers, etc.
Our mind is the software- it enterprets all these inputs and makes it processable.
Qualia are simply a part of the software that allows us to interpret and react to things.
It's quite a fascinating thought that we unconsciously modeled the computer to mimic our consciousness.
>>917636
No. All the states of atoms in your brain would not tell us what you're thinking of due to the fact that you can't measure qualia and thoughts like "redness" or "pain" cannot be observed from atoms.
Paraphrasing Frank Jacksons argument here but-
>imagine Fred
>Fred, for whatever reason- be it an extra cone in the eye or something, can see an extra color red.
>he sees red1 and red2
>however they are distinct to him
>if given ripe tomatoes he can repeatedly sort them by color, even if they are mixed
>Fres dies and leaves body to science
>there is nothing that can tell us what it's like to see red 2 even if we know what causes it.
>Fred had extra knowledge we all didn't and can't have
>>917627
Nah, you dislike reductionism because you hate the idea of being no different than a machine.
Simplification, if anything, serves to get the full picture right, getting deep-down to shit makes you think that it's totally impossible that "qualia" is simply a result of action-reaction mechanisms, just more complicated than philosophers who have no grasp on the topic may think.
Too bad that you're on the loosing side of this argument since DARPA develops human-machine interface as we speak. Measurable qualia, here we come(at some point, nowadays it's mostly for artificial limbs and military use).
>>917648
I think that is where we fundamentally disagree.
There is nothing magical about conciousness.
If you had the technology and processing power, with the knowledge of ever atom state (and energy) you could tell what a human is thinking.
That is what these brain projects are trying to do:
http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/
I'm not too concerned about it. In the next 25 to 50 years they will simulate a human brain and philosophy will be pointless or at least machines will do it for us at exponential rates and write library of congress worth of materials that no human could ever hope to read in their life time amount of material.
>>917462
>>917579
>>917589
What the fuck.
It's been dead for over 50 fucking years to being self-refuting; saying that "only verifiable statements are true" doesn't work on philosophical statements such as logical positivism. Logical positivism does not support materialism so saying it's butthurt idealists is retarded.
Why even bothering making a fool of yourself when you can't even bother to read the english wikipedia article about the subject.
>>917672
>It's been dead for over 50 fucking years to being self-refuting;
Nah, it's simply that modern logical positivists don't want to waste their time for talmudic "humanist" sciencimajic like philosophy and argue with you retards shouting lalalalala I don't hear you every time you see another proof that they were right.
>>917663
>muh Lightning=discharge of electrons
>muh pain=c-fiber firing
>muh water=H2O
Granted those are all true. But how do you account for the unique experience and knowledge that qualia grants?
Think about Mary. Mary grew up in a black and white environment- there was no color allowed in her presence. She decided to study neuroscience and optometry. She has all the info there is to know about those topics. She even knows different wavelengths cause people to say red or blue, granted she doesn't know what they feel like.
Finally one day she's let out of the room and she sees color for the first time. She may have known all there was to know about optometry and neuroscience, but that qualia of seeing color is inexplicable and irreplicable on a computer. Granted you could program a bot to
>if detect red, then print "wow red is vibrant"
But it's not qualia, that's simply programming a bot to detect a wavelength and answer a scripted message.
You'll never unlock quality, nor will you replicate it.
>>917585
there are tons of shit that cannot be observed. Why observe their effects and we put those effects in a chain of effects.
You could justify the existence of god with this kind of thinking
>>917453
Philosophy is primitive obsolete science, so a good philosopher is worse than a mediocre scientist.
>>917671
I think you're just scared of dying, so you hope computers can support your neural net and allow to live on within a perfect simulation.
Good luck getting a computer to write on aesthetics.
>>917688
There are examples of non technical essays being written by computers.
>>917679
> The position is so good it obviously don't need defending from anyone.
ok Pajeet, back to your formula sheets and let proper people think.
>>917682
Oh that is easy. Because genetic code isn't perfect and it can't replicates your atoms perfectly between individuals, everyone is going to have a unique experience.
Currently we do not have the means to scan the state of every synapse (much less atom) in your brain.
However, if we did, we would be able to observe qualia. We would see that a person who sees red as a darker shade would have more synapses in certain regions of the brain interacting etc.
If we had perfect information (say a perfect CAT scan that could see at the cellular level) we could observe the brain observing different qualia and could see how much a person is when they are angry etc.
Such technology is maybe 50 to 100 years away, but I do not think its impossible.
If the human race does not unlock the secrets of the mind it will simply eventually die out much like the dinosaurs and all this debating about qualia will be pointless.
>>917585
I cannot obverse that you are human like me...
>>917692
Which use previous papers as an algorithm to build on. No new creative thought is derived.
>>917688
Wait you are telling the guy who doesnt believe conciousness is magic that he is scared of death? dude...
>>917696
Here is the thing. You may be able to observe qualia on a molecular level, down to the cellular reaction of a person seeing different hues of red, but we will never know what it's like for that person to actually see different colors and maybe even colors we can't see due to them having an extra cone.
>>917624
>>Everything that exists is reduced to atoms and its interaction with the universe.
in what model ?
>>917699
How did you learn to write essays? By practicing and getting the basic rules and then exposing. You are just playing with creativity as some human special thing.
I grant it is not hard AI, but there are paradigms being changed today in machine learning which could revolutionize the way we think about our capacity. You seem to be the one scared to accept we are special, but not in the special way you thought.
>>917698
If I had a machine than could rearrange all the atoms in a body to match another human (without killing the human) they would have had the same experiences as you (maybe not going forward as two persons cannot occupy the same space).
>>917700
On the contrary, he believes consciousness is transferable. It's the human primal fear of death that drives him to hope there is something a computer can do for him.
There is none.
We just rot away in the ground.
Lights out.
No more qualia.
>>917704
Look. If you had a machine that could tell down to the exact state of synapse of a person's brain, you'd know if they had an extra cone or not.
>>917710
yeah, this is a nice fantasy.
>>917448
Because it was abounded by everyone. Including the people that made it. Only novices to philosophy still think it's relevant to the field.
To give a very short explanation. Can you use positivism to justify positivism? No you can't so any attempt to use positivism requires a self-referencing paradox.
>>917709
Let's examine Stephen King's book "Misery"
Are you saying an AI could fathom a unique story not based on anything else and write it?
No. It would synthesize a story based on previous stories, that would seem original but upon closer examination would just be a collection of tropes of others' works.
>>917711
Nobody believes that they can be saved from death by singularity, the majority of this board believes there is a mystical after life, fear of death is the main force behind denying the material reality of conciousness and the irrefutable biological certainty of what happens when you die.
>>917710
If you found out you were cloned you would think different thoughts than if you were not cloned. This would lead to different actions.
Because of this you can never create a perfect replica of a person. The very act of replication creates a fundamental difference. The clone of me would represent a new person, who while very similar is different
>>917687
>>917687
This. Only scientists give us computers and houses.. Scientists gives us too much pleasures for science to wrong.
>>917722
Again, tell me a human who just suddenly said "AHA, I just thought of a transcendental contribution" without previous experience or reaserch? We are plagued of biases, good or bad, that influence our thoughts every day since we are born.
>>917714
You still wouldn't know what it's like to see red2. You can cut an eye and examine it under a microscope today, but you wouldn't know what it's like to see red2
>>917722
>Implying humans can create something unique "not based on anything else"
Are you delusional or just incredibly immature?
>No. It would synthesize a story based on previous stories, that would seem original but upon closer examination would just be a collection of tropes of others' works.
This is how we operate
>>917724
I wish for a containment board for all the religitards
>>917732
if all stories are built on old stories, then there cannot be an original story since human creativity is nonexistent. Ad hominem attacks just make you look dumb try harder
>>917726
Didn't I say that two person's with the same atoms would have a different future experience. However their past would be the same.
Actually I take that back.... If you had two of the same persons with the same atom states and you created a simulated reality with the same exact rules of randomness seed etc.
And placed both persons in two copies of the simulated universe they would both have the same exact universe.
But you would need god-tier technology.
>>917727
Funny I used to study humanities like you guys and fedora wearing manchilds were a common sight on campus and so were people with blue hair, anime pins, goths, niggers, insert every cringeworthy subculture.Since I switched to medicine I have never seen a person like that, only respectable young adults.
Based on personal experience calling me a fedoralord for badmouthing a career that's full of them is silly.
>>917731
Ah ffs... I'm said if you had the technology to clone the atoms states between individuals you could share the same exact biological experience.
How hard is it to wrap around that we are made of atoms and energy.
Not fucking magic.
>>917741
>f all stories are built on old stories, then there cannot be an original story since human creativity is nonexistent
And you call me dumb? name a single story that is not built from previous works and daily life experience.
![Young_Kellogg_(Fallout_4)[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qMKuIH1.jpg "Young_Kellogg_(Fallout_4)[1].jpg")
>>917448
>Why is logical positivism frowned upon?
Because its liberal, and we are a /pol/ colony.
Also /his/ might as well be renamed /rel/ since its mostly about religion and spirituality, which dont gel with logical positivism.
>>917741
You are simplifying like a moron. Obviously there is no original story, but there is (im a regional sense) an original language which formed gradually when trying to comunicate our experience based on what we daily observe or feel.
>>917742
>>Didn't I say that two person's with the same atoms would have a different future experience.
when you speak of atoms, what do you mean ? in what model do you work ?
>>917742
Correct. If reality is the same, it is objective. Qualia is based on objective content but is itself subjective in nature.
Two atomically isomorphic beings would experience things the same, because qualia is derived through senses and the senses perceive the world.
Yet
>yet
You would still not know what it's like to be them because your quality experience of the same reality simulation would be different.
You will never know what it's like for them m8 deal with it. That's qualia.
>>917682
>Granted you could program a bot to
>if detect red, then print "wow red is vibrant"
>But it's not qualia, that's simply programming a bot to detect a wavelength and answer a scripted message
That's interesting because you can use proper sensors and answer with actual experience, along with all the details regarding distribution of whatever wavelengths you're interested in
That our brain, when receiving the same information and we understand it as "red" or "redder red" is a matter of the way it was "developed". Our electronics are mostly digital with very limited processing of analogue parameters as in - their purpose is mathematical in nature, while brains started evolving from very basic neural structures meant as sensors, therefore processing more analogue informations by default.
Our own electronics is poorly-fitted for this purpose(hence we do analogue-digital conversion in situations where we absolutely need to deal with analogue stuff), which doesn't mean that our biology isn't
If you still don't understand the point I'll put it like it - typical computer is geared to "see" numbers as in absolute states, our brains are geared to "see" relative quantities(and the difference in perception depends on point of reference) Does it mean these are completely different things, our brains and computers?
Well, you could argue like it if it wasn't for the fact that we know different kind of computer - a quantum one. As opposed to "seeing" absolute states, it can "see" ranges, so for example 2+2 for quantum computer equals "from 3,999999... to 4,000001" rather than just 4, which isn't particularly great when doing typical math but in situations like aerodynamics design etc. it's golden because it can show you several alternatives of given model(and in fact - the first company that bought quantum or like sceptics say - quantum-like computer was lockheed, who, among others develops airplanes). Aka. there are different kinds computers, brains are their own kind
>>917741
Lets do a simple thougth exercise:
-Imagine a colour you never seen before
Can't do it? rethink everything you posted in this thread until you find the answer why.
>>917744
You're silly for being an philistine
>>917747
A clone would know what red2 is but you wouldn't. It's not magic, it's subjective qualia derived through sensual perception
>>917749
How about the first story ever told. Probably by wall paintings. Still the first story ever told.
>>917763
The first story ever told was built on observations and daily life experiences.
For example a wall painting comic of how the latest hunt went.
>>917757
A good scifi or fantasy writer could describe something like this.
Imagine an alien that has a greater color spectrum. You could describe their new colors through metaphor.
Autistic people have trouble with metaphor though.
>>917757
Purple drank donut glaze orange
>>917754
>objective content
show me an objective content
>>917763
implying you can define ''story''
>>917754
If I had god tier technology and could simulate or create realities down the atom and created two universes that had the same exact atoms and predetermination of events, then both occupants of both universes would have the same exact damn qualia.
Those in both universes would experience the same exact experience exactly the same.
In fact it would be measurable.
Being god, I could manipulate both occupants with whatever I wanted them to think at the same exact time.
Their qualia would be measurable and exactly the same.
This claim that qualia can never be measured is pure religious nonsense that believes that consciousness is only because of the soul that by all means does not exist.
If you had enough information about the universe you could measure qualia.
If you had enough power of the universe, you could basically create whatever qualia you wanted on yourself or others.
>>917764
Nonetheless an author could put a twist on it.
>John and Dean killed a mammoth
>Joe the Autist Comedian makes first wall painting where John kills mammoth and Dean rapes it
>no one laughs because Joe is an autist but nonetheless it's unique
7777
>>917769
123
>>917774
If I had god tier tech, I would have a pussy and wank all day.
>>917775
But rape and bestiality are not orginal concepts
>>917778
no the sun is not an objective content, unless you prove it
>>917757
I can't imagine the color now because I do not have the processing power to do so.
If I had the computing power of an entire planet which was nothing but a giant quantum computer, I could easily simulate an almost infinite number of possible universes in which colors I had not imagined possible.
>>917765
describing something =/= imagining it
For example:
"Kids are playing with orange ball."
I've just described orange ball used for playing.
Now is it just a plain orange ball or basketball? The description doesn't specify it but the author when writing it imagined a one of them.
If you're describing something you've never seen or heard of though(nor you have any slightest idea how it looks like as it's 100% new thing for you)... you're just doing exercise of flowery language, if anything.
>>917775
Rape existed before the story.
Hunting existed before the story.
John and Dean existed before the story.
Mammoths existed before the story.
Jokes existed before the story.
Drawing on walls existed before the story.
This is just a combination of past experiences and observations.
Humans "create" by combining things they see. You are designed in such a way that you take a lot of input, all the new experiences, and everything you output is built from these experiences.
That is why if you stay at home all day you will probably turn out a moron, but if you do different things and travel to different places meeting different people you will likely be a smart guy. You will have more to reference.
>>917774
I'm not religious, I'm just saying your qualia will Be different because you are not one with the clones. A tiny alteration in your cornea that makes colors off hue by 1 mini-hertz would result in different qualia
>>917783
>>917785
No.
>>917784
Both the description and the imagining are all basically manipulation of atoms.
Those atoms are of course different from everyone but they are in theory measurable.
The ball itself is made of a discrete set of atoms and the brains that interpet that information are also made up of atoms.
In fact if it weren't for atoms none the ball would not exist in reality or in the minds of the observers.
>>917788
Did you not read my arguments. I'm saying in this scenario the two simulated universes would have the same exact set of atoms, amount of energy, and randomness seed. There would be no "tiny alterations".
>>917794
Isn't that what philosophy is about? Imagined experiments in your head.
Though at least my experiments are something that billions of dollars are being spent on to prove (ala Blue Brain Project) rather than making claims that qualia exists and can never be observed.
I'm pointing out that if we had the technology to do so we could observe qualia which is by all means something that borders faith.
>>917805
>There would be no "tiny alterations".
But how do you know that ?
>>917795
Just denial? No strawman even?
Wow, you gave up fast. At least surrender properly.
>>917823
Did you just call me a philosopher? mate I'll shiv you in the gut irl, I'm a doctor.
>>917823
No, you made a baseless claim and concluded shit without clearly analyzing why you are such a moron.
>>917824
Because I fucking said that in this scenario you would have control over every single atom in this simulation and the rules that affect them including quantum mechanics.
There would be no tiny alteration because it would be impossible to exist in those universes.
>>917839
yes so how do you from this statement
>you would have control over every single atom in this simulation and the rules that affect them including quantum mechanics.
to this statement
>There would be no "tiny alterations".
show me the logical proof of this implication.
>>917834
Its not a baseless claim. Atoms states can be observed. This is a fact.
We simply lack the technology to observe all the states in all the atoms in a persons brain.
We most likely do not have to delve this deep. We only have to observe down to the synapse level.
We can observe these states. This is a fact. We simply do not have to observe all the states in real time all at once.
Once we do, we can observe qualia.
>>917852
Reading popsci only goes so far...
>>917847
Because if you controlled all the variables in a universe, there would be no alterations because by definition you control all the states.
If you did not control all the variables, then yes, there would be tiny alterations.
How is that not logical. If it was possible to control all the variables in a simulated universe, then how would their be uncontrolled variables.
How is that not logical?
Would there be spontaneous magic in any attempts to simulate universes down to the atom?
>>917770
If you want to be autestic about it and define imaging a color you havn't seen as literally seeing the color than you have essentially created a paradox. The moment you imagine the color it's seen.
Imagining something you have not seen by defination must be imagined in a non-visual way.
Dumb-ass.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/
Start here. This thread is embarrassing. Shame in all of you.
>>917856
So are you saying building a simulated human mind or simulated universes impossible?
What evidence do you have to prove this?
>>917861
>Imagining something you have not seen by defination must be imagined in a non-visual way
I have never seen a 8-legged leopard, but I am most certainly imagining, in vivid, 'visual' detail, what one looks like right now.
>>917863
Philosophy didn't create the atom bomb or put a man on the moon.
>>917784
Let me pull something.
Imagine the Bible God, not the Jesus part but the old testament part. Shapeless, formless, and without any material properties.
By definition you cannot imagine an image of it. However it's a concept everyone is familiar with.
Concepts can exist without a visual representation. Hell the word "concept" has no visual representation.
>>917871
That has literally nothing to do with logical positivism, a philosophical movement from the early-middle period of last century.
>>917870
Well congrats. You have now seen an 8-legged leopard, which defeats your argument. Imagination is a type of visualization.
So to repeat, the only way to imagine something unseen is without visuals, otehrwise you are seeing it in your mind.
>>917882
>Imagination is a type of visualization.
>the only way to imagine something unseen is without visuals
These statements contradict each other.
>>917861
>You could describe their new colors through metaphor.
You are nitpicking, you understood my argument and why its valid and you're trowing a tantrum over a linguistic misunderstanding
>>917879
Well I'm arguing for Scientific Reductionist. The argument against it is that things are too complex. I'm arguing its too complex now, but will not be in the future.
>>917892
Great. Still completely irrelevant.
>>917896
Eh. Reductionists and Logical Positivism are intertwined. You cannot have observations to prove things without breaking it down into parts that have causality.
So if effect if you argue for one you argue for both.
Either way, without scientific observation, we'd be living in caves without the time to worry about qualia.
Qualia isn't even complicated. The concept of X causes many of the same neurons to fire as actually experiencing X to fire, just differently and in addition to other neurons. There you go. Qualia.
>>917672
You do know that Flew revised the Verification principle by Ayer to the Falsification principle, which is used by science, and shows how bad pseudo-science is as it doesn't use this.
>>917687
its the other way around
Philosophy is the known beginning science is an extension of it, the beginning and end are impossible for us to know
>>917448
Because long prior to its invention philosophy already went above and beyond the limits of our language, which logic is strictly bound by.
Basically, logic makes sense when you only think on the level of our language structure. But language did not come first. The universe reaches farther than language; every symbol in a language is like the temporary petrification of a small particle in a gigantic pool of energy. So putting logic on a pedestal is fine for some pursuits, but where philosophy is concerned, it's missing the mark severely.
There is no such thing as qualia.
>>919340
Sure, and there's no such thing as, Matter, Free will, God, Ethics, Beauty, Being/Self.
All metaphysical claims are out the window, why not believe in an evil demon and become a solipsist?
Positivism gives the senses an unjustifieded trust.
An epistemologically sound trust on the senses should lead to scepticism, as it does in Hume.
Positivists are ingenuous.
>positivism iz true cus it gave us computers
>>920128
Then why a positivist treatment is much more effective than other treatments when dealing with many principles about the universe? Shouldn't you be confused that even if there are many arguments against pure positivist remarks, it still works like a charm? It cannot answer every single question, but it sure does answer a lot, even some which philosophers are adamant to let go.
>>917671
>I'm not too concerned about it. In the next 25 to 50 years they will simulate a human brain and philosophy will be pointless or at least machines will do it for us at exponential rates and write library of congress worth of materials that no human could ever hope to read in their life time amount of material.
That's scary but awesome as fuck
We've got like 20-30 years to come up with our best theories to explain everything before computers do it for us flawlessly
Sweet
>>919402
>Free will
