Galileo and Consciousness

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an article about Consciousness and Galileo's views.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/galileos-big-mistake/

************

If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one there to see it, does it make a sound? An age-old philosophical conundrum you might think; in fact, this question was given a definitive answer in the 17th century by the father of modern science, Galileo Galilei.

A key moment in the scientific revolution was Galileo’s declaration that mathematics was to be the language of the new science; the new science was to have a purely quantitative vocabulary.

To return to the example we began with, when a tree comes crashing down in a forest, the crashing sound isn’t really in the forest, but in the consciousness of an onlooker. No onlooker, no consciousness, no sound.

In Galileo’s worldview, there is a radical division between the following two things:

The physical world with its purely quantitative properties, which is the domain of science,

Consciousness, with its qualities, which is outside of the domain of science.

It was this fundamental division that allowed for the possibility of mathematical physics: once the qualities had been removed, all that remained of the physical world could be captured in mathematics. And hence, natural science, for Galileo, was never intended to give us a complete description of reality. The whole project was premised on setting qualitative consciousness outside of the domain of science.

Although this problem is taken very seriously, many assume that the way to deal with this challenge is simply to continue with our standard methods for investigating the brain.

This common approach is, in my view, rooted in a profound misunderstanding of the history of science. We rightly celebrate the success of physical science, but it has been successful precisely because it was designed, by Galileo, to exclude consciousness.

I think we can have confidence that we will one day have a science of consciousness, but we need to rethink what science is. The science of Galileo was not designed to deal with consciousness. If we now want a science of consciousness, we need to move to a more expansive "post-Galilean" conception of the scientific method, one that takes seriously both the quantitative properties of matter than we know about through observation and experiment, and the qualitative reality of consciousness that each of us knows through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences.

Nothing short of a revolution is called for, and it’s already on its way.

Consciousness is at the root of human identity; indeed, it is arguably the basis of everything of value in human existence. This new scientific revolution will transform not only our understanding of the physical universe, but also of what it means to be a human being.

************

Cheers.

Sriram

[Outrider]

Oh boy...

Noise is the human recognition of compression waves in a fluid reaching the inner ear. Whether someone is there or not, we have no reason to think that a tree falling would suddenly not produce exactly the same compression waves in the atmosphere, so yes, a tree in a forest makes a sound.

To Galileo, the activity of the human brain possibly did appear something beyond science. Modern fMRI, neurology, neurochemistry, CAT scans and any number of other investigative matters shows that in fact it isn't.

Galileo, and indeed many of the early Enlightenment scholars that followed him, didn't do what they did to exclude consciousness because of some artificial delineation between science and consciousness but because the identified the subjectivity of the human experience and were trying to replace it with objective measurement and cold, hard reason and logic.

Which just leaves the question of whether consciousness is a facet of brain activity or indications of something else, and for all your cheerleading for the next big discovery, we still don't have any evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the contention that there's an external element to consciousness.

That ball is still in your court, waiting for you to choose which methodological racket you want to try and play it with.

O.

[Stranger]

Sriram clutches at another straw....       

[Sriram]

There is plenty of evidence that......more and more scientists are considering consciousness as not just an emergent property born of random  variations. They consider it as much more fundamental and they even consider evolution as a product of consciousness. The existing scientific method is increasingly seen as a limitation in certain areas.

Your old school science is on the way out. You guys better get used to it and make way for the new.....

[Outrider]

There is plenty of evidence that......more and more scientists are considering consciousness as not just an emergent property born of random variations.

And have any of the produced anything to validate the idea? They can do all the science they want - and they absolutely should do all the science they can - but it's the output that matters in this instance. Have they produced anything that validates any of these ideas?

They consider it as much more fundamental and they even consider evolution as a product of consciousness.

Well now that depends; they may be investigating IF this is the case. They might or might believe it to be the case, but if they're decent scientists they'll hold any conclusions until they have the data to support it.

The existing scientific method is increasingly seen as a limitation in certain areas.

No, it isn't. There are people who want to depict the scientific method as limited because it doesn't validate their pet theory, but until and unless they can come up with an alternative then science is still the best tool we have. It has limitations, but those limitations haven't changed over time, they aren't suddenly not up to the task.

Your old school science is on the way out.

So you keep saying, but you haven't yet explained where this new school is.

You guys better get used to it and make way for the new.....

Just so I can be prepared, is it going to get here before or after widespread nuclear fusion power, or hydrogen fuel cells?

O.

[/quote]

[Stranger]

Sriram clutches at another straw....       

...consciousness as not just an emergent property born of random  variations....

Shows basic misunderstanding.

Your old school science is on the way out...

And trots out another of his tired old clichés.

...and they even consider evolution as a product of consciousness.

Who's 'they'? You'd need a lot more than most panpsychism ideas to make consciousness have anything to do with evolution. The only time I recall your posting anything about evolution being 'intelligent' it was just you misunderstanding it.

It's not even as if the article has much to say, it's virtually a book advert. I'm not sure what brand of panpsychism this philosopher (not scientist) is peddling, but, as I keep pointing out, panpsychism (at least in any of the forms I'm so far encountered) is not going to support your other woo like an afterlife and it most certainly isn't going to impact on your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

That one of the panpsychism speculations might be true is not impossible (and it would be a fascinating discovery), it's just that, so far, there is no evidence to support any of them. It's your uncritical certainty that is so irrational.

[Sriram]

Don't keep harping on and on about evidence. We have already discussed all this. Lots of things are accepted in science without direct measurable evidence. Strings, Parallel Universes, Time travel  etc. are examples.....and all these are discussed in science forums with enthusiasm.   

Your atheistic and materialistic mindsets are unable to accept something that you have believed for decades to be 'supernatural' or 'woo' or whatever....is now beginning to be discussed in science circles. This is merely a stubborn refusal to recognize various aspects of reality that are outside the standard model.   

[Stranger]

Don't keep harping on and on about evidence. We have already discussed all this. Lots of things are accepted in science without direct measurable evidence. Strings, Parallel Universes, Time travel  etc. are examples.....and all these are discussed in science forums with enthusiasm.   

Except that they simply aren't just accepted without evidence. If you kept on telling us (for example) that time travel was definitely possible and quoting every person who had some conjecture about it, that would be almost as irrational as what you're actually doing.

The 'almost' is only because there is a well tested theory that suggests it's possible in certain (rather unrealistic) circumstances. If you were just latching on to every speculation about it (even when they contradicted each other), it would be exactly as irrational.

The problem is that your motivation is a clear as day. You want your superstitions to be validated by science. As I said before, it's by no means impossible that one of the speculations about consciousness may be true, but they certainly can't all be true and neither do any of the remotely credible (even as speculations) ones support all of your favourite superstitions.

Your atheistic and materialistic mindsets are unable to accept something that you have believed for decades to be 'supernatural' or 'woo' or whatever....is now beginning to be discussed in science circles. This is merely a stubborn refusal to recognize various aspects of reality that are outside the standard model.   

I'm not denying that there is a lot that we don't know, but it's you who have the obvious agenda here, not the people pointing out problems, contradictions, and lack of evidence for the various speculations you keep posting. It's also not the rest of us that are refusing to accept well tested and complete explanations which are not to our liking.

[Sriram]

It is obvious that many of you have an agenda and a rigid materialistic mind set.  That becomes clear from the fact that you still refer to such matters as superstition, in spite of reading the views of so many scientists and modern philosophers......

[Stranger]

It is obvious that many of you have an agenda and a rigid materialistic mind set.  That becomes clear from the fact that you still refer to such matters as superstition, in spite of reading the views of so many scientists and modern philosophers......

Actually, it's your set of beliefs that have the hallmarks of superstition, rather than the individual conjectures you keep referring to. As I keep pointing out, none of the remotely credible conjectures you've linked to would satisfy all the things you seem so determined must be true.

Conjecture is one thing while certainty without evidence is something entirely different.

[Outrider]

Don't keep harping on and on about evidence.

Then don't keep harping on about the future of post-science understanding and the mystic woo...

]quote]We have already discussed all this.[/quote]

Yet you keep forgetting to bring the methodology to conduct whatever process will support your assertions.

Lots of things are accepted in science without direct measurable evidence. Strings, Parallel Universes, Time travel  etc. are examples...

None of those are accepted science. Strings are verging on a testable hypothesis, I think, but I've not seen any evidentiary basis to accept them yet. Parallel universes and time travel are notional concepts which could, potentially, but subject to scientific enquiry at some point but not currently.

Your atheistic and materialistic mindsets are unable to accept something that you have believed for decades to be 'supernatural' or 'woo' or whatever...

Atheism has nothing to do with it, there are any number of religious believers who might accept your notions but would tell you that it's a belief and not science. As to materialism... I'm not immutably beholden to materialism, but it is the underlying principle of science. Again, if you have another system then bring it along.

..is now beginning to be discussed in science circles.

What scientific circles? If you say you're a scientist, but you have to throw science away to justify your claim then you're not a scientist.

This is merely a stubborn refusal to recognize various aspects of reality that are outside the standard model.

There are things we know are outside the standard model - a quantum model of gravity, for instance. There may be other things outside the standard model that we've not discovered yet. You're trying to suggest something's outside the standard model not because we can't explain it, but because when we do explain the phenomenon you want it to be something else.

The problem here isn't limitations of science, but your desperation to try to put something else - something that you've still not adequately justified or explained - on an even footing with science in order to support woo.

You are expressing frustration at this cycle; if you don't like this response, then you need to give a different prompt. So long as you keep coming up with new age mysticism and a complaint that it's beyond the limitations of science, we'll keep coming back with 'what's your alternative methodology'. If you want to break the cycle, bring your methodology to justify your claims, not just your distaste for the well-established methodology that doesn't justify them.

O.

[Sriram]

  There you go..... What New Age mysticism? The articles I have linked about consciousness and evolution (in the other thread) sounds like New Age mysticism to you?  Near Death Experiences sound like new age mysticism to you?

This is the bias I am talking about..... the two boxes syndrome!   

[Outrider]

There you go..... What New Age mysticism? The articles I have linked about consciousness and evolution (in the other thread) sounds like New Age mysticism to you?

Yes. Attempts to suggest that some universal consciousness is guiding evolution sounds like New Age mysticism to me.

Near Death Experiences sound like new age mysticism to you?

No, they sound like a phenomenon. Your explanation for that phenomenon, however, is at least NAM-adjacent.

This is the bias I am talking about..... the two boxes syndrome! 

This is not 'bias', this is discernment.  You take a phenomenon which has a viable scientific explanation, you dismiss that because science is 'so old school', make a claim about mystic-woo, fail to offer any substantiation for that claim (or any mechanism by which such a substantiation could be achieved) and then cry foul when people point out that you've got nothing but an unsubstantiated claim of magic.

This is not bias, this is a fair conclusion on the lack of evidence not presented in support of your claim.

O.

[Sriram]

You can call for more investigation and look for more evidence etc. etc. That is fine.

But it is the labeling you do that I am talking about. That is what is the issue.  That clearly shows the mindset and the bias.

[Outrider]

You can call for more investigation and look for more evidence etc. etc. That is fine.

Thanks.

But it is the labeling you do that I am talking about. That is what is the issue.  That clearly shows the mindset and the bias.

How? You come along with a claim in defiance of conventional science, with not just no backing but not even an idea of how you'd start to overturn the accepted science, you claim 'science' is backing you but don't actually cite any, and then say 'bias'.

If you're suggesting something that defies the current understanding of science without any justification or support, be it evidentiary, logical, mathematical or something else, then you have to accept that it's going to be called woo, because... that's what woo is.

Sciency-sounding, but fundamentally unsupported and often actively anti-scientific claims are woo. What you're doing ticks all those boxes.

Sciency-sounding - check.
Not supported by current accepted science - check.
Actively discounting current science - check.

Ergo - woo.

You don't like it being called woo, don't bring woo to the discussion.

O.

[Gordon]

  There you go..... What New Age mysticism? The articles I have linked about consciousness and evolution (in the other thread) sounds like New Age mysticism to you?  Near Death Experiences sound like new age mysticism to you?

This is the bias I am talking about..... the two boxes syndrome! 

Nope.

When professional scientists who are specialists in the relevant fields (neuroscience etc) publish in a relevant peer reviewed scientific journal that they are using specified methods to test the theory/hypothesis that cauliflowers are conscious, and in doing so they present their data and conclusions then there might - just might, mind - be a basis to consider that consciousness outwith neurology (e.g. brains) is indeed a testable possibility: but until then such ideas are best viewed as being pseudoscientific woo aimed at those who like that sort of thing.
 

[Sriram]

It is not just a matter of testable and non-testable phenomena. That is easy. Many non-testable phenomena exist even under the label of science. People keep trying to find evidence and after many decades they may find suitable evidence.....or even otherwise, they remain interesting ideas.  I have given these examples already.... Strings, Parallel Universes, time travel and so on.

In the case of consciousness and NDE's and such other phenomena however, it has become an ideological divide. It is a science vs religion divide. This is a major problem....and if a similar archaic attitude is held by other professional scientists....it could put back our understanding by several decades. That is what I am talking about.

My interest in bringing up the views of so many professional scientists and philosophers is precisely to bridge this ideological gap and to reduce the impact of the two boxes syndrome.

[Stranger]

It is not just a matter of testable and non-testable phenomena. That is easy. Many non-testable phenomena exist even under the label of science. People keep trying to find evidence and after many decades they may find suitable evidence.....or even otherwise, they remain interesting ideas.  I have given these examples already.... Strings, Parallel Universes, time travel and so on.

It does seem to be a tenet of your religion to never, ever, under any circumstances, risk actually learning anything. Yet again: "Parallel universes" aren't even a (singular) thing and time travel is (in scientific terms) no more than academically interesting but completely useless and untestable solutions to Einstein's field equations (one of them involves the whole universe rotating).

String theory is one of many hypotheses that attempt to solve a known problem in physics, namely uniting general relativity with quantum field theory. You could (just about) get away with comparing that to the integrated information theory of consciousness, which has had published papers, but has also been heavily criticised by most other researchers in the field.

IIT, however, even if it's entirely correct, is not going to support your woo claims. It's doesn't give us minds without brains, an afterlife, or make the slightest difference to evolution.

In the case of consciousness and NDE's and such other phenomena however, it has become an ideological divide. It is a science vs religion divide.

Except it actually isn't. The 'hard problem' of consciousness is called the 'hard problem' for a reason. Philosophers and some scientists have been speculating about it for a very long time. The problem is bringing any of these speculations into serious science that has some hope of being tested. As for NDEs, your problem is not that they aren't being investigated, it's that you don't like the real science and want to latch on to the shoddy studies and wild speculations that conforms to your superstitions, rather than following the evidence.

My interest in bringing up the views of so many professional scientists and philosophers is precisely to bridge this ideological gap and to reduce the impact of the two boxes syndrome.

It's quite right that people are refusing to blindly accept baseless speculation, shoddy work, and obvious nonsense. It's not that serious work on consciousness is not going on, it's that you don't like most of the directions it's going in because, again, they don't line up with your superstitions.

You are the one with the two boxes here, one for things you like (which must be true) and one for things you don't like (that must be false or incomplete).

You've decided on the answers to all these things and now you're just pushing anything that you think might support them. That's not 'new science', it's the exact opposite of science.

[ekim]

As regards the tree falling in the forest, if 'sound' is an experienced percept of an acoustic wave that has passed through auditory physiology, I would say that if there is no experiencer there is no sound but there is an acoustic wave of the appropriate audio frequency. I would say that sound is the subjective product of a conscious brain which is why one can hear voices apparently arising from people appearing in dreams.

[Sriram]

As regards the tree falling in the forest, if 'sound' is an experienced percept of an acoustic wave that has passed through auditory physiology, I would say that if there is no experiencer there is no sound but there is an acoustic wave of the appropriate audio frequency. I would say that sound is the subjective product of a conscious brain which is why one can hear voices apparently arising from people appearing in dreams.

Yes...we not only hear things but also see, smell, taste and feel lots of things in our dreams. Even in our imagination we can see and experience many things. Experiences are mental in nature felt by consciousness. Our sensory organs only facilitate the process and our brain is just a platform on which it happens.   

[torridon]

Yes...we not only hear things but also see, smell, taste and feel lots of things in our dreams. Even in our imagination we can see and experience many things. Experiences are mental in nature felt by consciousness. Our sensory organs only facilitate the process and our brain is just a platform on which it happens.

The brain is not a platform.  The experience of seeing is the phenomenology of your brain interacting with electromagnetic radiation via sense organs.  It is a conceptual mistake to think of the brain like some general purpose computer upon which software runs

[Outrider]

It is not just a matter of testable and non-testable phenomena. That is easy. Many non-testable phenomena exist even under the label of science.

No. If it's not testable, it's not a matter of scientific enquiry. It might be verified, validated or otherwise supported by other means - philosophically, logically - but it's not science if you can't test it, that's fundamental to the concept.

People keep trying to find evidence and after many decades they may find suitable evidence.....or even otherwise, they remain interesting ideas.  I have given these examples already.... Strings, Parallel Universes, time travel and so on.

And, again, only one of those, with possible means of testing, is currently within the realms of science. As has been repeatedly pointed out.

In the case of consciousness and NDE's and such other phenomena however, it has become an ideological divide.

No. You just don't have anything to offer. It's not ideological, it's methodological. You don't have a methodology, it would seem.

It is a science vs religion divide. This is a major problem....and if a similar archaic attitude is held by other professional scientists....it could put back our understanding by several decades. That is what I am talking about.

Except that you aren't talking about understanding, you're talking about accepting claims without any understanding. Why accept your claim and not anyone else's baseless claim? Why accept your idea that NDE's are an artifact of non-corporeal consciousness but dismiss Scientology's claims of Xenu which have exactly as little basis?
 

My interest in bringing up the views of so many professional scientists and philosophers is precisely to bridge this ideological gap and to reduce the impact of the two boxes syndrome.

Who are these 'professional scientists'? You claim they're out there, but I haven't seen you cite anyone's work, I haven't seen links to peer-reviewed papers - not just from you, but if this were out there it would be in the major journals, it would be on the front pages of the newspapers.

O.

[Sriram]

No. If it's not testable, it's not a matter of scientific enquiry. It might be verified, validated or otherwise supported by other means - philosophically, logically - but it's not science if you can't test it, that's fundamental to the concept.

And, again, only one of those, with possible means of testing, is currently within the realms of science. As has been repeatedly pointed out.

No. You just don't have anything to offer. It's not ideological, it's methodological. You don't have a methodology, it would seem.

Except that you aren't talking about understanding, you're talking about accepting claims without any understanding. Why accept your claim and not anyone else's baseless claim? Why accept your idea that NDE's are an artifact of non-corporeal consciousness but dismiss Scientology's claims of Xenu which have exactly as little basis?
 
Who are these 'professional scientists'? You claim they're out there, but I haven't seen you cite anyone's work, I haven't seen links to peer-reviewed papers - not just from you, but if this were out there it would be in the major journals, it would be on the front pages of the newspapers.

O.

That is why learned people are calling for a revolution in science. 

From the OP....

"we need to rethink what science is. The science of Galileo was not designed to deal with consciousness. If we now want a science of consciousness, we need to move to a more expansive "post-Galilean" conception of the scientific method, one that takes seriously both the quantitative properties of matter than we know about through observation and experiment, and the qualitative reality of consciousness that each of us knows through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences".

[torridon]

That is why learned people are calling for a revolution in science. 

From the OP....

"we need to rethink what science is. The science of Galileo was not designed to deal with consciousness. If we now want a science of consciousness, we need to move to a more expansive "post-Galilean" conception of the scientific method, one that takes seriously both the quantitative properties of matter than we know about through observation and experiment, and the qualitative reality of consciousness that each of us knows through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences".

That doesn't equate to abandoning the principle of being rigorous and methodological or being constrained by evidence and observation.

[Sriram]

That doesn't equate to abandoning the principle of being rigorous and methodological or being constrained by evidence and observation.

But we know that born blind people have no evidence of light.  In an isolated situation....why and how would they find evidence of light?