Excellent discussion! It is also worth pointing out that even if their points were granted, their assertions are somewhat challenged by contemporary physics. For example, the notion that something could "only exist in a relative sense, for something else” is not all absurd in quantum physics. This was first pointed out by Schroedinger's cat, then expanded on in Wigner's friend, and recently culminated in the 2022 Nobel Prize. That Nobel was awarded for empirical tests that falsified the notion that observable physical properties "pre-exist" measurement (realism), and that the quantum weirdness is due to measurements directly interfering, or "being part of the measurement" (locality). Both these assumptions cannot co-exist. There are several attempts at resolving this measurement problem that put observer-dependency of physical phenomena such as spin ("exist in a relative sense, for something else") front and center. Their second point is even more challenging to reconcile with current physics: "how could ... entities ... which purportedly exist only “operationally,” ... have such an effect?" However, the wave function in quantum physics seemingly exists only operationally. It could be argued that "fields" only exist operationally as well since they really are just abstract mathematical objects. Most importantly, their argument is basically a variant of arguing against creatio ex nihilo ("something cannot come out of nothing").Yet, this precisely what the classic version of the Big Bang theory argues: the entire universe exploded into existence out of nothing. There is a certain irony in the fact that the only theory that takes the idea that science can translate between brains and conscious minds via the usual method of mathematical laws of nature that allow for quantitative predictions is interpreted as somehow assuming that "there is no brain". While most other theories assume that physics of the brain is not that important since consciousness rests on abstract "computations" that can be understood without worrying about the physical and biological details ("implementation level") of the brain.. The silver lining about the debates surrounding IIT is that it becomes increasingly clear that scientists would be well served to learn about and appreciate solidified insights from philosophy, and for philosophers to learn about and appreciate the cutting edge of science. Last times that happened was during the development of quantum physics and then again during development of quantum field theory and the standard model. In other words, the last two times that we made more than incremental progress in science. Most people involved in either of these breakthroughs wrote more books on philosophy than physics.
Thank you for these excellent points! I couldn't agree more with your insights on the collaboration between scientists and philosophers. In fact, I always conceived philosophy in this sense (we could say applied philosophy) and science in the broadest sense (we could say theoretical science) as two faces of the same coin. Arguably, it can make sense to use the words to broadly describe one's expertise and background, but ultimately I firmly believe that there is no clear border between the two disciplines. I believe that it is more productive to focus on problems and how to solve them, rather than discipline. And as you eloquently argued, the best results are when the efforts are aimed in the same direction.
Fascinating points. I fully agree that quantum mechanics (and buddhism) could ground a relational notion of existence, in which "things" exist to the extent that they exist for something else, instead of a substantialist notion according to which true existence corresponds to a self-contained independent essence or substance that exists in and of itself. However, IIT endorses the latter, not ther former, so it might be beneficial for the theory to explore a more relational metaphysical view.
@@concienciafilosofica From the IIT Wiki (www.iit.wiki/glossary#h.hyln43vondn5): "The term existence also appears in the ontology of IIT. Intrinsic existence characterizes entities that exist for themselves (i.e. intrinsic entities). In contrast, extrinsic existence characterizes entities that don’t exist for themselves, but may exist for us as experiencing subjects (i.e., extrinsic entities)." Note that both definitions use "for" (not "of").
Excellent discussion! It is also worth pointing out that even if their points were granted, their assertions are somewhat challenged by contemporary physics.
For example, the notion that something could "only exist in a relative sense, for something else” is not all absurd in quantum physics. This was first pointed out by Schroedinger's cat, then expanded on in Wigner's friend, and recently culminated in the 2022 Nobel Prize. That Nobel was awarded for empirical tests that falsified the notion that observable physical properties "pre-exist" measurement (realism), and that the quantum weirdness is due to measurements directly interfering, or "being part of the measurement" (locality). Both these assumptions cannot co-exist. There are several attempts at resolving this measurement problem that put observer-dependency of physical phenomena such as spin ("exist in a relative sense, for something else") front and center.
Their second point is even more challenging to reconcile with current physics: "how could ... entities ... which purportedly exist only “operationally,” ... have such an effect?" However, the wave function in quantum physics seemingly exists only operationally. It could be argued that "fields" only exist operationally as well since they really are just abstract mathematical objects. Most importantly, their argument is basically a variant of arguing against creatio ex nihilo ("something cannot come out of nothing").Yet, this precisely what the classic version of the Big Bang theory argues: the entire universe exploded into existence out of nothing.
There is a certain irony in the fact that the only theory that takes the idea that science can translate between brains and conscious minds via the usual method of mathematical laws of nature that allow for quantitative predictions is interpreted as somehow assuming that "there is no brain". While most other theories assume that physics of the brain is not that important since consciousness rests on abstract "computations" that can be understood without worrying about the physical and biological details ("implementation level") of the brain..
The silver lining about the debates surrounding IIT is that it becomes increasingly clear that scientists would be well served to learn about and appreciate solidified insights from philosophy, and for philosophers to learn about and appreciate the cutting edge of science. Last times that happened was during the development of quantum physics and then again during development of quantum field theory and the standard model. In other words, the last two times that we made more than incremental progress in science. Most people involved in either of these breakthroughs wrote more books on philosophy than physics.
Thank you for these excellent points! I couldn't agree more with your insights on the collaboration between scientists and philosophers. In fact, I always conceived philosophy in this sense (we could say applied philosophy) and science in the broadest sense (we could say theoretical science) as two faces of the same coin. Arguably, it can make sense to use the words to broadly describe one's expertise and background, but ultimately I firmly believe that there is no clear border between the two disciplines. I believe that it is more productive to focus on problems and how to solve them, rather than discipline. And as you eloquently argued, the best results are when the efforts are aimed in the same direction.
Fascinating points. I fully agree that quantum mechanics (and buddhism) could ground a relational notion of existence, in which "things" exist to the extent that they exist for something else, instead of a substantialist notion according to which true existence corresponds to a self-contained independent essence or substance that exists in and of itself. However, IIT endorses the latter, not ther former, so it might be beneficial for the theory to explore a more relational metaphysical view.
@@concienciafilosofica From the IIT Wiki (www.iit.wiki/glossary#h.hyln43vondn5): "The term existence also appears in the ontology of IIT. Intrinsic existence characterizes entities that exist for themselves (i.e. intrinsic entities). In contrast, extrinsic existence characterizes entities that don’t exist for themselves, but may exist for us as experiencing subjects (i.e., extrinsic entities)."
Note that both definitions use "for" (not "of").