Another demonstration of chatGPT 4.0 capabilities

You seem to be confusing a philosophical argument with scientific evidence.

There is no scientific evidence demonstrating that consciousness can ever arise from matter.

It is entirely a philosophical discussion.

[Laird]

You seem to be confusing a philosophical argument with scientific evidence.

If the argument is sound, then scientific evidence is irrelevant, because its conclusion is true regardless. To me, the argument seems not just sound but cogent. Here's my framing of it in a nutshell:

1. If consciousness is epiphenomenal, then we do not (because we cannot) know we are conscious.
   
2. We know we are conscious.
   
3. Therefore, consciousness is not epiphenomenal.
   

The argument is definitely valid, and its premises all seem true, so it seems to be sound. If you think otherwise, feel free to explain why.

Also, as Valmar points out: epiphenomenalism is a philosophical position; why, then, wouldn't a philosophical argument against it be acceptable?

It's not clear to me in any case what sort of scientific evidence you have in mind that you think could allow us to decide one way or the other whether or not consciousness is epiphenomenal.

If the argument is sound, then scientific evidence is irrelevant, because its conclusion is true regardless. To me, the argument seems not just sound but cogent. Here's my framing of it in a nutshell:

1. If consciousness is epiphenomenal, then we do not (because we cannot) know we are conscious.
   
2. We know we are conscious.
   
3. Therefore, consciousness is not epiphenomenal.
   

The argument is definitely valid, and its premises all seem true, so it seems to be sound. If you think otherwise, feel free to explain why.

Also, as Valmar points out: epiphenomenalism is a philosophical position; why, then, wouldn't a philosophical argument against it be acceptable?

It's not clear to me in any case what sort of scientific evidence you have in mind that you think could allow us to decide one way or the other whether or not consciousness is epiphenomenal.

It’s just a rephrasing of Descartes classic argument for substance dualism “ Because one cannot (rationally) doubt the existence of one's mind but can (rationally) doubt the existence of one's body, it follows that one's mind is numerically distinct from one's body.”

I don’t think there’s any particular reason to assume that the human mind can comprehend the fundamentals of reality. Therefore I believe both arguments to be false.

There is no scientific evidence demonstrating that consciousness can ever arise from matter.

It is entirely a philosophical discussion.

Even what "matter" is seems to be a matter of philosophical discussion. All science tells us is the data and correlations, but whether - for example - the Materialist faith or the Idealist metaphysics is correct isn't possible to deduce from science alone.

That said, I do think science goes against physicalist based epiphenomanlism as noted in the article I replied to sbu with (link for convenience):

Not only does mentality exist in humans, but also presumably in the myriad other species of this world. For mentality to evolve and to maintain itself therein, without any purpose or power, runs against our notions of evolution, of selection. For instance, have we not evolved our intelligence, our reasoning powers? Did they not aid our survival and development? Very few will deny this premise, but a physicalist will deny mental force, mental causation: the power of the mind, as it is not a known fundamental force. Thus physicalism conflicts with evolutionary theory. To try to overcome this by identifying the mind with the physical will not work because: (1) psychoneural identity theory has failed, and (2) if mental powers are actually physical powers, one thereby returns to the predicament of having to explain why mentality exists if it has no powers of its own. The final outcome is that if one accepts evolution one must deny physicalism.

[Laird]

It’s just a rephrasing of Descartes classic argument for substance dualism

If that's what you think, then you don't understand it - at all.

I don’t think there’s any particular reason to assume that the human mind can comprehend the fundamentals of reality.

Then words like "epiphenomenal" are strictly meaningless, because incomprehensible, and we should stop using them, right?

If that's what you think, then you don't understand it - at all.

I think I understand it well enough. Both arguments basically states “because I’m consciousness” => B

Problem is that because we can’t objectively define what it means to be consciousness you can’t reason like that.

It’s just a rephrasing of Descartes classic argument for substance dualism “ Because one cannot (rationally) doubt the existence of one's mind but can (rationally) doubt the existence of one's body, it follows that one's mind is numerically distinct from one's body.”

No, it's not...?

It's an argument against *epiphenomenalism*, highlighting how it defines itself out of existence by nature of its arguments and logical conclusions.

Because we can know, quite intimately, that we the individual are certainly conscious and aware of our surroundings and our own thoughts, epiphenomenalism is self-refuting by Laird's outline.

I don’t think there’s any particular reason to assume that the human mind can comprehend the fundamentals of reality. Therefore I believe both arguments to be false.

You are basically stating that all metaphysical inquiry is pointless. That includes Materialism / Physicalism, as they are purely metaphysical endeavours.

Therefore, we cannot believe anything that Materialism / Physicalism states either, because we can't comprehend the fundamentals of reality, after all.

Science can tell us nothing about the nature of reality, because it simply cannot get behind matter and physics.

Even what "matter" is seems to be a matter of philosophical discussion. All science tells us is the data and correlations, but whether - for example - the Materialist faith or the Idealist metaphysics is correct isn't possible to deduce from science alone.

Indeed. For all of the assuredness that Materialists / Physicalists have, not one of them would be able to tell us what the nature of matter itself is.

All I've seen is a desperate attempt to reduce particles down to combinations of even more "fundamental" particles...

Ever more particles won't yield any answers as to their ultimate nature.

It just can't get behind matter ~ it can't tell us what matter **is**, at its very root. Energy? Still physical in nature... it's not an answer. It just raises more questions.

That said, I do think science goes against physicalist based epiphenomanlism as noted in the article I replied to sbu with (link for convenience):

Cheers.

I think I understand it well enough. Both arguments basically states “because I’m consciousness” => B

No, they don't...? It's merely an argument against epiphenomenalism for why we are conscious.

Epiphenomenalism simply cannot explain why we are conscious. It in fact logically implies that we aren't conscious at all, because there is no consciousness that has ever been shown to be able to arise from purely chemical and material processes. Therefore, we should not be conscious. We should just be a weird mass of inert, directionless, purposeless chemistry and material processes without any sort of end-goal.

Problem is that because we can’t objectively define what it means to be consciousness you can’t reason like that.

Consciousness cannot be objectively understood by any measure, because consciousness has no objective qualities.

Matter has objective qualities, and so, a brain has objective qualities.

Problem actually is... how does one get from the purely objective material to the purely subjective mental? Aka the Hard Problem.