Galileo and Consciousness

[torridon]

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?

they can buy a light meter, about £20 on Amazon.  That would confirm that light does in fact exist.

[Sriram]

they can buy a light meter, about £20 on Amazon.  That would confirm that light does in fact exist.

You don't get it.  In an isolated situation....a community of born blind people living in an island.  They have no clue that Light exists. Why and how would they go about creating a 'science' that would provide them with suitable evidence that Light exists and what it actually is?

[torridon]

You don't get it.  In an isolated situation....a community of born blind people living in an island.  They have no clue that Light exists. Why and how would they go about creating a 'science' that would provide them with suitable evidence that Light exists and what it actually is?

We are an isolated community.  All people on this planet are blind with respect to dark matter, but we can detect it indirectly and indirect observation puts constraints on our ideas about what it might be. Nobody has ever seen a subatomic particle, but indirect observation allows us to model them

[Sriram]

We are an isolated community.  All people on this planet are blind with respect to dark matter, but we can detect it indirectly and indirect observation puts constraints on our ideas about what it might be. Nobody has ever seen a subatomic particle, but indirect observation allows us to model them

Yes...but all the things that we detect are detectable in one way or the other. They are merely extensions or extrapolated aspects of other objects that we know of.

Light, on the other hand, to a born blind isolated community does not even exist. There is no way they can even presume that it exists. 

My point is about evidence.  Creating a science and a method to measure and observe something that is outside our physical observable world and about which we have no idea, is tricky.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't get it.  In an isolated situation....a community of born blind people living in an island.  They have no clue that Light exists. Why and how would they go about creating a 'science' that would provide them with suitable evidence that Light exists and what it actually is?

They would feel the warmth of the sun and base a science around that. They could arrive at a theory of thermodynamics. They would perhaps notice that sometimes although the sun was not warm enough to produce much heat they might experience burning and conclude there was another type of emanation (UV) and conjecture that there might be many types of emanation beyond the four senses.

[Sriram]

They would feel the warmth of the sun and base a science around that. They could arrive at a theory of thermodynamics. They would perhaps notice that sometimes although the sun was not warm enough to produce much heat they might experience burning and conclude there was another type of emanation (UV) and conjecture that there might be many types of emanation beyond the four senses.

Yes...I agree they would have other sensations (heat) to examine. But from that ....to conclude that something like Light existed  and to understand its exact properties and pervasive nature, would be next to impossible.

What sort of evidence would they have to enable any sort of an 'observation' and investigation given that they are blind people?

I am just trying to being out the tricky nature of 'evidence'. Evidence for certain phenomena could be present all around us and still be outside our natural  capabilities of observation.

[Enki]

.................

I am just trying to being out the tricky nature of 'evidence'. Evidence for certain phenomena could be present all around us and still be outside our natural  capabilities of observation.

As long as one is open to the possibility of such phenomena whilst being aware that possibility doesn't necessarily mean actuality then I see no problem. This, of course, is one of the strengths of science. Of course, evidence can be tricky to obtain, but until intersubjective evidence is obtained, any conjectures will remain conjectures without any solid foundation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes...I agree they would have other sensations (heat) to examine. But from that ....to conclude that something like Light existed  and to understand its exact properties and pervasive nature, would be next to impossible.

What sort of evidence would they have to enable any sort of an 'observation' and investigation given that they are blind people?

I am just trying to being out the tricky nature of 'evidence'. Evidence for certain phenomena could be present all around us and still be outside our natural  capabilities of observation.

I think people around here see evidence as having to be material, unearthed by science and how material is observed to move around. In a community with only four senses we would expect the technology to be based around those and I suppose, the four senses to be heightened. I would imagine language to be more important.

[Sriram]

As long as one is open to the possibility of such phenomena whilst being aware that possibility doesn't necessarily mean actuality then I see no problem. This, of course, is one of the strengths of science. Of course, evidence can be tricky to obtain, but until intersubjective evidence is obtained, any conjectures will remain conjectures without any solid foundation.

I have no problem with considering these phenomena as conjecture or hypotheses. It is labeling them as religious beliefs and dismissing them entirely as superstition while offering convoluted material explanations....that is what I am arguing against.

[Udayana]

I have no problem with considering these phenomena as conjecture or hypotheses. It is labeling them as religious beliefs and dismissing them entirely as superstition while offering convoluted material explanations....that is what I am arguing against.

But surely people pushing ideas that have no supporting evidence or method of verification/falsification are doing so on a religious or superstitious basis? What else?
 

[Sriram]

But surely people pushing ideas that have no supporting evidence or method of verification/falsification are doing so on a religious or superstitious basis? What else?

Are strings or parallel universes or time travel, religious or superstitious ideas?

[Outrider]

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

From the OP....

One guy misunderstanding science is not 'learned people calling for a revolution'.

"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".

No. The error is starting right at you in the middle of that excerpt that you posted - we don't 'know' through our immediate awareness, as you're so fond of pointing out. Our understanding is both fallible and subjective. That extends to our understanding of ourselves. Just because we feel something doesn't make it justified.

You don't get it.  In an isolated situation....a community of born blind people living in an island.  They have no clue that Light exists. Why and how would they go about creating a 'science' that would provide them with suitable evidence that Light exists and what it actually is?

The same way we discovered magnetism, for which we don't have a direct sensory organ - through its effect on the world around us. Maybe they'd monitor the movement of phototropic plants, maybe they'd hypothesise on the source of warmth they feel from the sun (as mentioned elsewhere).

O.

[Gordon]

Are strings or parallel universes or time travel, religious or superstitious ideas?

That is a false dichotomy, Sriram.

These ideas might be better described as being speculation based on science for which, as yet, there is no suitable method of investigation that would be sufficient to accept or reject these ideas.

[Outrider]

Yes...but all the things that we detect are detectable in one way or the other. They are merely extensions or extrapolated aspects of other objects that we know of.

Light, on the other hand, to a born blind isolated community does not even exist. There is no way they can even presume that it exists.

Like us an magnetism? We can detect anything that has an effect, in principle.

My point is about evidence.  Creating a science and a method to measure and observe something that is outside our physical observable world and about which we have no idea, is tricky.

Yes. That's why it's important to understand how it works, and its limitations, and why it's important not to presume non-existence from a current lack of evidence, but also not to presume existence despite a lack of current evidence.

What you're doing, though, goes beyond that: you're promoting the idea that something is intrinsically beyond science, yet has some measurable, demonstrable effect. That's fundamentally misunderstanding how science works.

O.

[Sriram]

Like us an magnetism? We can detect anything that has an effect, in principle.

Yes. That's why it's important to understand how it works, and its limitations, and why it's important not to presume non-existence from a current lack of evidence, but also not to presume existence despite a lack of current evidence.

What you're doing, though, goes beyond that: you're promoting the idea that something is intrinsically beyond science, yet has some measurable, demonstrable effect. That's fundamentally misunderstanding how science works.

O.

I know how science works....and that is why I keep highlighting its limitations. And that is why I link articles of philosophers and scientists who understand its limitations and are willing to look at those aspects of reality that lie beyond the scope of current science.

[Outrider]

I know how science works....and that is why I keep highlighting its limitations.

No, you keep arbitrarily claiming that some things are beyond science's remit without explaining how or why. The examples that you give are not only firmly within science's capacity, but we have current adequate scientific explanations for them, and you aren't pointing out any limitations with those, you're just claiming an exemption.

And that is why I link articles of philosophers and scientists who understand its limitations and are willing to look at those aspects of reality that lie beyond the scope of current science.

Science's limitation do not preclude it explaining consciousness or Near Death Experiences, as things stand. These are observed phenomena that scientific enquiry can investigate and test. Until, and unless, we see something involved that not only does not have a potentially detectable explanation, but somehow could not have (and I can't imagine how that would be), or until some other reliable methodology is presented which is better suited to the investigation, the very real limitations of science will not impact upon this study.

Science is the investigative process by which we examine observable, measurable, detectable phenomena. Near death experiences are an observable phenomenon. Consciousness is an observable phenomenon. What limitation of science precludes them investigating those phenomena?

O.

[Sriram]

No, you keep arbitrarily claiming that some things are beyond science's remit without explaining how or why. The examples that you give are not only firmly within science's capacity, but we have current adequate scientific explanations for them, and you aren't pointing out any limitations with those, you're just claiming an exemption.

Science's limitation do not preclude it explaining consciousness or Near Death Experiences, as things stand. These are observed phenomena that scientific enquiry can investigate and test. Until, and unless, we see something involved that not only does not have a potentially detectable explanation, but somehow could not have (and I can't imagine how that would be), or until some other reliable methodology is presented which is better suited to the investigation, the very real limitations of science will not impact upon this study.

Science is the investigative process by which we examine observable, measurable, detectable phenomena. Near death experiences are an observable phenomenon. Consciousness is an observable phenomenon. What limitation of science precludes them investigating those phenomena?

O.

For a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  Some convoluted explanation or the other is offered for every phenomenon because that is the only explanation possible given current scientific methods.  That is then taken as the final word.

Consciousness being an emergent property of the brain....is not a good enough explanation.  NDE's being mere hallucinations generated by a dying brain....is not a good enough explanation.

You will say...'Ok...so provide us with the right explanation which can be examined  by our scientific methods'. No...the current scientific methods are just not good enough for certain phenomena. A microscope is not suitable to examine everything. 

That is why there is a call among more and more people to overcome this situation...and to develop better and more suitable methods.  This obviously, cannot happen in a day. It has to evolve and develop over time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Consciousness being an emergent property of the brain....is not a good enough explanation.

Why not? 

NDE's being mere hallucinations generated by a dying brain....is not a good enough explanation.

Not sure I'd use the word hallucination, but as neurological phenomena associate with extreme oxygen deprivation.

But, why not? Why is this not a good enough explanation? Seems pretty good to me as it is based on evidence.

[Sriram]

Why not? 
Not sure I'd use the word hallucination, but as neurological phenomena associate with extreme oxygen deprivation.

But, why not? Why is this not a good enough explanation? Seems pretty good to me as it is based on evidence.

No...it is not based on evidence. That is the only explanation possible given the limitations of physicalism and the scientific method....which is very different from evidence. 

[ProfessorDavey]

No...it is not based on evidence. That is the only explanation possible given the limitations of physicalism and the scientific method....which is very different from evidence.

Rubbish - it is based on evidence, for example that people reporting NDE have elevated CO2 blood levels (an indicator of low oxygen) and it is possible to induce very similar phenomena in other situations that result in oxygen deprivation to the brain, notably through exposure to extreme g force.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your old school science is on the way out.

Oh you mean that 'old school science' which about 18 months ago when people started getting ill in China:

1. Identified the source of the infection
2. Completely sequenced the genome of the virus and determined its protein structure
3. Developed models to determine how the virus is transmitted
4. Used 3 above to recommend methods to mitigate against transmission
5. Identified treatments that help to reduce the severity of disease and prevent people from dying
6. Used 2 to develop, test and roll out a number of highly successful vaccines
7. Continued to use the scientific method to identify new variants, determine whether they are of concern and whether the vaccines will work against them
8. Use 2, 6 and 7 to develop modified vaccines to deal with new variants

Yeh, stupid old school science, clearly neither correct nor useful Sriram.

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

Yup, let's use mumbo jumbo to solve problems such as pandemics, rather than old school science, because if you really, really, really want to magic up a vaccine, I'm sure you can using pseudoscience.

[Udayana]

Are strings or parallel universes or time travel, religious or superstitious ideas?

There is a very simple, well understood test for a theory being scientific. That is: can it be shown to be false by observation or experiment.

String theory is maths; as far as I know, to this point models based on it have not progressed to making assertions that are falsifiable.

Parallel universes and time travel are speculation, of little use for anything except fiction. They are not falsifiable. When fiction or mythology are proselytized as facts they become religions.

I love fiction and mythology and am quite happy with most religious outlooks, but they are not science.
 

[Sriram]

Rubbish - it is based on evidence, for example that people reporting NDE have elevated CO2 blood levels (an indicator of low oxygen) and it is possible to induce very similar phenomena in other situations that result in oxygen deprivation to the brain, notably through exposure to extreme g force.

What kind of evidence is that? Obviously, when people are deprived of oxygen they could very well have a OBE...similar to a NDE.  The evidence matches.

How does that prove that it is just a brain related phenomenon and not a real OBE?

[ProfessorDavey]

How does that prove that it is just a brain related phenomenon and not a real OBE?

OBE - out of body experience?

What on earth do you mean by a real OBE - that presupposes that there is something not associated with a neurological phenomenon and if you wish to make that assertion you need to provide some evidence to support it. There is of course amply evidence to support it being a neurological phenomenon so to go further than that not only is base-less (as there is no evidence) but also falls foul of Occam as the neurological explanation is sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

[Sriram]

OBE - out of body experience?

What on earth do you mean by a real OBE - that presupposes that there is something not associated with a neurological phenomenon and if you wish to make that assertion you need to provide some evidence to support it. There is of course amply evidence to support it being a neurological phenomenon so to go further than that not only is base-less (as there is no evidence) but also falls foul of Occam as the neurological explanation is sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

You talk of oxygen deprivation, which is a near death situation. A person has a OBE (Yes...Out of body experience) and you claim it is because of neurological reasons!!  That is absurd.

Oh....our friend Occam again!     According to Occam (being a friar), God is the simplest explanation with least assumptions. 

In any case, if a person has an OBE the simplest explanation is to accept that he had an OBE!  To assume that the brain for some reason, creates such illusions, is neither simple nor likely to be true.