Timeline for answer to Does psychoactivity reveal the mind's physical basis? by Professor Sushing
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 hours ago | comment | added | keshlam | @CriglCragl: I have trouble with the idea that something that science is still working towards is "outside science". This may be the distinction between science as a practice versus science as current best understanding. I think the cosmologists would object if you said that the appearance of dark matter and dark energy were "outside science" though they would grant that science has not resolved them yet. Not understood is different from never observed and no path leading to a test. | |
| 7 hours ago | comment | added | CriglCragl | @keshlam: By Popper's criteria, things like the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, being unfalsifiable, are outside science. Subjective experiences like whether art is felt to be good, are obviously real experiences, but outside of science. Many experiences are not about establishing evidence & analysis, like for instance experiencing love, as a subjective experience. | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | keshlam | @CriglCragl: I don't think I accept the concept of "outside of science" except for things which have no real presence in any sense. Outside of current knowledge, sure. Outside the scope we generally apply science to, absolutely. Outside the range that we feel a need to understand that deeply, sure. | |
| 12 hours ago | comment | added | CriglCragl | If qualia are outside of science, don't they not need explanation - they can simply, be? | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | mudskipper | E.g. the partial ineffability of direct experience can be seen as an introspective "given" (because we're not able to label, describe or remember certain distinctions even though we can observe them when they are presented simultaneously), but that doesn't preclude a decription that while adequate (and complete) cannot be verified just by introspection. | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | mudskipper | I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but have a question: Would you say your last statement means the same as (or would perhaps even be better expressed as) "... that still won't describe what it feels like to feel bored"? It seems to me that that is true, but that doesn't preclude explanation. I.e. the word "explain" and "explanation" seems ambiguous here. | |
| 20 hours ago | history | answered | Professor Sushing | CC BY-SA 4.0 |