Would modus tollens and modus ponens respectively be accurate translations here?
I think abduction is a reasonable translation for this.
Perhaps it is better to not use these translations, because they are similar, but still very different from how they are used in Indian logic.
In Indian logic p and q have to be invariably concomitant. Such that if p is present q is always entailed(there cannot be exceptions) In later Indian logic p and q were defined very precisely by their properties. As a certain type of smoke for example does not entail a certain type of fire, a smoke bomb is not produced from a general type of fire, but certainly there is a chemical reaction taking place producing heat which is not visible. Birds flying in a certain way can be used to make the inference an earthquake is about to take place.
In the case of abduction especially, p and q are not invariably concomitant. As there are several alternatives possible for p. For example if I see wet soil I can guess that it rained last night, but there are other explanations such as somebody spilling water on it, a dam breaking. Therefore there is no invariable concomitance between p and q. This is recognised as a fallacy in Indian logic.
Applying Indian logic to real world examples such as the motion of an arrow. There is a relationship of invariable concomitance between the arrow in flight and falling. It is impossible to have a situation where an arrow is in flight and it does not fall. From another observation it is shown there is a relationship of invariable concomitance between motion and force. That is an object remains at rest or continues in motion until a force is applied. Therefore, the falling of the arrow can only be explained by positing a downwards force.
Indian logic is therefore a scientific logic. It is very similar to how science makes an observation and then best tries to explain that observation. But it is in fact superior because science is essentially guessing at the explanation from hypothesis(abduction) when several hypothesis are possible(for gravity: Newtonian, GR etc) In Indian logic only one explanation is possible. If there are several then no certain conclusions can be asserted. There is no hypothesizing in Indian science.
I would modify this. First, science is rational but it is not based on rationalism (see my empirical/empiricism distinction). Rational simply means agreeing with reason, as in not irrational. Second, its theories are not based on conjecture; its hypotheses are based on conjecture. Theories, on the other hand, must have sufficient evidence to support them so speaking from definition they cannot be based on conjecture. Third, some theories "end up getting falsified" because they no longer produce accurate predictions not because of irrationality (as implied by "not rational") nor due to being "based on conjecture" which they are not.
Here we will disagree. If a theory is rational, then why does it ever get falsified? The answer is because the premise of the theory were not valid all along. The conclusion may appear to look valid, but if the premises are false, then the conclusion is not actually valid. When a theory gets falsified it means that one or more of the premises of that theory were wrong. Just as 2+2 = 5 is not rational, a bad theory is not rational either.
The truth is that our current scientific method which relies on hypothetica-deductive method is an invalid method to ascertain truth. Even Karl Popper said that using this method truth can never be reached, but only asymptotically apprached through the gradual falsification of bad theories. Indian logic said from the very outset that hypothetical reasoning, ad hoc speculation etc is not a valid means of doing science.
The philosophy of science is in crisis since the advent of quantum theory. Many influencial and great philosophers have brought science to trial - Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn etc in exposing the irrationalities in the modern scientific method.
Remember the argument from ignorance is a fallacy.
Yes, but this is not an argument from ignorance. This is an argument that the claimant must first produce proof of their position. As the default position in philosophy of science and philosophy of mind has been for thousands of years the mind-body problem(recent formulation is hard problem of consciousness) the burden of proof lies with the materialist to prove that this is produced from material activity.
As for naturalism (materialist is outdated and wrong) there are several lines of evidence that I believe make this the preferred conclusion. First I would like to modify that straw man you keep bringing up. The naturalist position is not that matter=consciousness but rather that mental states supervene on brain states.
This is not a strawman, but an accurate description of what materialislm teaches. It teaches that everything is
really material activity and consciousness is an epiphenomena(the famous ghost in the machine metaphor) So the burden of proof lies with the materialist to show that material activity can produce consciousness. Until that is not forthcoming it is an unproven philosophy and the faith of those who subscribe to it.
The above shows, at the very least, that the brain is inherently tied to and affects the mind. Other supporting evidence is how the mind affects the brain but that is easy to come up with. Now for the evidence of causation and not correlation:
I appreciate you have been honest about the distinction between correlation and causation. What we know is that there is correlation between brain and mental states, which only proves that these two substances interact. It does not prove one is the other.
) Changes in electrical activity predict (and precede) changes in mental activity
This is true, but it also true that my thinking also leads to changes in electrical activity. Studies have shown for example how during meditative practices where I make a conscious effort to still the thought activity in my mind, there are predictable neurological state changes. Therefore there is no proof of causation here, but correlation and interaction. The brain interacts with the mind and the mind interacts with the brain.
No if it were true that the mind was caused by the brain then you have a logical problem. If something is caused by somthing else(such as electrical activity in the brain) then that something has no causal efficacy of its own. It is just an epiphenomena. For example the pictures on the television screen have no causal efficacy because they are just electrical activity
really they cannot affect the electrical activity back. Similarly, in a computer the computer characters are all driven by lines of code, they have no causal efficacy of their own and cannot affect the code back.
In Indian logic this is postulated as the rule that the effect cannot prouce the cause only the cause can produce the effect. For example clay can produce a pot, but a pot cannot produce clay.
There is a spookiness inherent in your position that I pointed out earlier to Copernicus. That spookiness is how consciousness is being caused inside the brain, and yet it can go outside of the brain and see its own cause. It is just like the television pictures going outside of the screen and seeing the television circuit. The computer character going outside the computer and seeing the circuitry. Hilary Putnam framed this very well, "If you are a brain in a jar, how do you know you are a brain in a jar" Popular framing of this is: If you are in a matrix, how do you know you are in a matrix?
Indian logic has the best solution to this problem and that is the observer cannot be the observed. Whatever is observed is outside of you, it is impossible that you are inside of it. I observe the body - I am outside the body; I observe the brain - I am outside of the brain. I even observe the mind - I am outside of the mind.
As you are mentioning scientific studies I can also mention studies done on OBES and NDES. In these studies the person is able to detach from the body and see their body from outside. How is this possible at all if consciousness is in the body. How on earth can it come out of the body and see its own body?
How your observer is caused by the measurable activity of the brain yet still causes it? Is there another observer homunculus?
What you identify as an observer here is not identified as an observer in Indian logic(Samkhya). What you are identifying as observer is what we call mind, which is yet another content of observation. The observer is simply the fact of awareness or what in phenomenology is known as aboutness, and this awareness can have different content, but the the fact of awareness is axiomatic. in Indian logic we do not make the mistake of identifying the personality construct as the awareness. In fact the personality construct(buddhi, ahamkara and manas) are considered to be emergent material phenomenon(not built by physical matter, but primordial matter) It does not surprise us at all, that modern science has discovered this personality can be split up. We know it is a false construct.
The mind-body continuum is understood in Samkhya to be made out of inert non-intelligent matter and it is governed by natural laws. Consciousness, on the other hand, is the only substance which is not reducible to this mind-body continuum. The mind-body continuum is the object of conscousness/awareness, not the cause of it. Consciousness is an absolute precondition for you to know anything at all. Thus it is anterior. All that you know to be existent are objects of your consciousness.
