= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on The raw-experience dogma: Dissolving the “qualia” problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (340)
So how is the lifting being done? By elimination, as per your other comment?
Could you please rephrase this question?
How does one solve problems by "adopting materialism"?
I do not hold that materialism solves any problems.
Materialism is the useful tautology that everything that is woven into the Great Web of Causality falls under the category of "physics". And that by "physics" we mean "everything in the GWC".
Non-materialism is the non useful statement that some things exist and effect the GWC without being part of the GWC.
I don't see the usefullness. There's a usefull distinction between, for instance,
"everything reduces to the behaviour of its smalles constituents"
and
"there are multiple independent layers, each with their own laws and causality".
I can also see the difference between
"Everything that effects is effected"
and
"There are uncasued causes and epiphenomenal danglers".
reductionism is orthogonal to materialism
uncaused causes are empirically verifiable (we have no clear examples)
Once you clear up all the crap around dangling epiphenomena with the GAZP, what's left has no use.
Maybe. But if you distinguish them, it turns out that the work is beign done by R-ism.
We have candidates, such as the big bang, and the possible disappearance of information in black holes.
I'm still rather unpersuaded that you can solve problems by adopting beliefs. Sounds too much like faith to me.
Likewise. I wonder what you are referring to?
The_Duck wote:
I seem to have translated "accepting" into "adopting"
Can you give a materialist account of this "Great Web of Causality"?
All the things that effect the other things.
Ok, now taboo "effect".
see pearl
So how would I use this description of "effect" to taboo the word in the following sentence?
Or would you argue that the above sentence is incoherent.
It's not incoherent.
I don't know. I don't understand pearl's reduction of causality. I just know it's there.
Mathematical relations like "hydrogen properties are dependent of electron mass" might not fit the causality concept. Or maybe I just can't make the math jump.
Anyways, what are you gaining by these questions? Do you have some grand solution that you are making me jump thru hoops to find? Do you think I have some grand solution that you are jumping thru hoops to squeeze out of me?
I'm trying to show you that materialism in the sense you seem to mean here is ultimately incoherent.
You'll have to explain your position. I can't see it. To clarify what I think, take "me" as a node, and recursively build a causality graph (Pearl's thing) of all the causes that lead into that node. By some theorem somewhere, that graph will be connected. Then label that graph "my map of the universe" and label it's compressing model "physics". That is what "materialism" means to me.
I've just realized, tho, that the rest of you might attach a different concept to "materialism", but I don't know what it is. Can you give me a steel-man (or a straw man (or a nonmaterial entity)) version of what "materialism" means to you?
I suspect you mean "affects."