Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Nereid]

I’m having some difficulty here Les, so please be gentle.

By the way, studies being conducted (such as the QSC research by Gao Shan that Radar mentioned in another thread) are exploring the possibility of consciousness being able to affect things on a quantum level. We might imagine that any living awareness, once sensing the need to adapt, could have an effect on its own genetics.

I'm all for experiments!

This one sounds like it will have a rather difficult time of controlling the confounding effects.

I agree. Dr. Shan, I believe, is looking into the possibility that consciousness is a new property of matter, so as far as I can tell his approach is strictly physicalist. I also gleaned from his comments (he generously offered a brief explanation of his work in my thread on panpsychism) that his concept of consciousness is modeled somewhat on how a computer functions.

How does the idea which seems to motivate this experiment differ from Lamarckism?

I don't think it is motivated by Lamarckian concepts at all. I think his experiments take off from the observed wave function collapse in non-locality experiments. I personally don't know how it can be established that the wave collapse isn't the result of the physical aspects of observation (i.e., photon interference), but then I've not kept up with the latest developments in this area. Fliption seems to think there is reason to suspect consciousness itself might have a quantum effect.

Then later

Are there any good reasons why any 'something more' can't be studied scientifically?

Yes, I am afraid there are. Whatever human consciousness is, it is now in a physical body. To perceive we rely on the senses, which are also physical, and they reveal only physical information. The empirical aspect of science depends solely on the senses. That means if there is something more than physicalness, then science has no experiential avenue with which to empirically confirm hypotheses about “something more.”

If any ‘something mores’ cannot, by their very nature, be studied scientifically, is there any way that the experiments of Dr. Shan (etc) can contribute to an understanding of any ‘something more’? Including, potentially, a demonstration that there is no ‘something more’?

Other than the two tests you briefly described (a computer with consciousness and creation of life in a test tube, to oversimplify), is there any way to substantially shrink the potential scope for ‘something more’ wrt consciousness and the origin of life?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I’m having some difficulty here Les, so please be gentle.Then laterIf any ‘something mores’ cannot, by their very nature, be studied scientifically, is there any way that the experiments of Dr. Shan (etc) can contribute to an understanding of any ‘something more’? Including, potentially, a demonstration that there is no ‘something more’?

Other than the two tests you briefly described (a computer with consciousness and creation of life in a test tube, to oversimplify), is there any way to substantially shrink the potential scope for ‘something more’ wrt consciousness and the origin of life?

Yes, I almost addressed that, but I thought you might already know about it. Radar and I exchanged similar ideas, and then I explained it this way. If there is something more to consciousness which is non-physical, there must be a way it interacts with the physical, since here we are alive in physical biology. I don't think the physical can detect the non-physical, but I can see where physical experiments might be able to detect that point, on the physical side, where they interact.

 

[Nereid]

Do you have some good links?

Here is the landmark 1997 paper. If you google on "Murchison", with words such as "non-racemic", "amino acids", etc you will find plenty of links.

So are you saying we may have been seeded. I felt you were hinting towards this.

What I am saying is that as we look closer into new domains, we often find a richness that is unexpected and surprising. In this case, it's another small 'physicalist step' about the origin of life - quite complex organics are apparently being formed, in interstellar space, by the billions of tonnes, with a clear non-racemic flavour. There's still, IMHO, at least a good 50 years' of work to do before all the major steps in the abiogenesis story are even sketched.

Panspermia - 'seeding' - is another story, equally fascinating, but barring a surprising discovery, also a story that will likely run for at least 50 years yet before tantalising hints become moderately confident understanding.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First off, the purposive intelligence is something I am proposing to make your hypothesis more feasible. It is not something that I believe in. Second, why does this have to be called God? I never it was all-powerful or all-knowing or that it had anything to do with the existence of the universe itself. There is also no reason why such an entity would be worthy of or require worship.

I’ll start with this. Lighten up! I was teasing you, I hope you haven’t lost your sense of humor.

Emergence is not a new concept. The expansion of freezing water is an emergent property. Whether or not consciousness is an emergent property might be up for debate, but the existence of emergent properties is not.

What I meant was that the popularity of applying emergent theory to consciousness is relatively recent.

I thought you didn't believe abiogenesis because it hadn't been demonstrated. Evolution by natural selection has been. What comparison is there?

Physicalists study all the physical stuff happening and then proclaim that’s it, we figured it out! But they utterly ignore the advantages being part of a living system gives the physical processes. That is why when they want to prove their case, they have to do it with a living system, or using something that was once part of life (as with viruses or PCR). All that’s been proven is that physical process are thoroughly involved in a living system, and from that they ASSUME physicalness is causing all systemic aspects. I don’t buy for a second, with the evidence we have, that all there is to evolution is physcial processes and the physical environment. If I were an a priori physicalist, I might buy it.

I'm just curious why you're so dead intent on avoiding it when, from what I can tell, your hypothesis requires it to really make any sense.

I don’t think you do understand my hypothesis because . . .

I'm not trying characterize what you imagine. I'm telling you what I think your hypothesis requires to be feasible. A couple of things:

-The vast majority of organisms have no such system in place (one by which they can will a movement from point A to point B).

-The "something more" that you are proposing is not an entity internal to any particular organism. It is an outside force. Even organisms that do have the capability to will their own movement can't will the movement of another organism.

-Movement occurs according to a huge interface of nervous and muscle systems. The replication of DNA, in contrast, occurs in an environment that is completely cut-off from any interaction with any other organismic process. This analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.

. . . none of that is relevant to it. I will try to explain what I mean once more. Keep in mind that it was you who asked me to hypothesize about all this when I said up front I didn’t think this was the place for me to speculate. There isn’t enough room here for me to account for everything I need to make my case.

Anyway, I’ll start with an anology. If I were trying to teach you the concept of follow-through on a tennis swing, my lesson (not that you need one) would be to get you to feel the naturalness of follow-through. There was this guy, I think his name was Tim Galway, who wrote a best seller years ago called “The Inner Game of Tennis.” He said he could teach people who never had a racquet in their hand how to hit the ball effectively in an hour. The show “60 Minutes” took him up on the offer, and he did it! His approach was to have students learn to feel one’s way to the proper swing, and to do that ahead of breaking down a swing into minute detail.

My concept of the holistic influence a force of progressive organization might have on a biological system is like that. I have been trying to suggest that the force acts holistically, but results in detailed effects within the complexities of biology (similar to the analogy of will I used earlier). You keep wanting to make the force detailed, but that is not what I, at least, have been saying. If you want to describe it as a detailed, computing, thinking, rational force, then that is your model, not mine. The progressive organizing force I envision is “whole,” it acts holistically, and it’s nature is to move things in the direction of organization (if you want to call that nature “purpose,” I am fine with that). I am making no other claims about it!

Now, as far as an organism’s awareness affecting evolution, again you are bogged down in the minutia of bio-complexity. What I mean is, since biology (in my model) is a system originally borne of the force of progressive organization, evolved by it, and its chemistry is now kept reacting organizationally “upward” by that force (I realize that’s a new aspect of the concept), it means biology is most intimately tied to the organizing force. Awareness, in this model, is the ultimate expression of that organizing force, so it and biology are both offspring of progressive organization and therefore kin. So the idea is that because it is all entwined, each (system awareness and biology) has an avenue for affecting the other.

 

[Philocrat]

Sorry Philocrat, I didn't make it more clear that what I said was tongue-in-cheek. I was teasing you good-naturedly, not ridiculing. I was really saying your questions are incredibly difficult! To ask about first cause or purpose is to pose two of the most elusive issues I know of. Already the subject of this thread has a lot of people thinking of how to answer it, do you really want to add more issues we can't answer?

Perhaps...and I think it was Descartes who thought along this line. He vowed to steer clear of any question for which he may never provide an answer. Everytime I think of these hard-headed questions, they just make my chemistry boil. I share in everyone's frustration in not being able to answer these questions. Yet I feel that we still have to ask them. I think we are better off asking them than not do so at all. Who knows, some clever dude might turn up in future to answer them.

Sorry if irritate you any more than I have to...but one question that I would like us to at least think about is this:

if there is so much deficit in our knowledge of the universe or the human reality, must we physically (or otherwise) change ourselves first before we can know the remainder, given that we knew anything at all?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps...and I think it was Descartes who thought along this line. He vowed to steer clear of any question for which he may never provide an answer. . . .

Sorry if irritate you any more than I have to...but one question that I would like us to at least think about is this . . .

I wouldn't want you to steer clear of any meaningful question -- that's what philosophy is all about -- so good questions are never irritating. I was only suggesting you pose one such brain-breaker per thread.

if there is so much deficit in our knowledge of the universe or the human reality, must we physically (or otherwise) change ourselves first before we can know the remainder, given that we knew anything at all?

This question would make an excellent thread subject, for example.

 

[loseyourname]

I’ll start with this. Lighten up! I was teasing you, I hope you haven’t lost your sense of humor.

What made you think I had a sense of humor?

What I meant was that the popularity of applying emergent theory to consciousness is relatively recent.

To be fair, neuroscience has only existed for several decades. It isn't like there are past scientific models you can compare emergence to.

Physicalists study all the physical stuff happening and then proclaim that’s it, we figured it out! But they utterly ignore the advantages being part of a living system gives the physical processes. That is why when they want to prove their case, they have to do it with a living system, or using something that was once part of life (as with viruses or PCR). All that’s been proven is that physical process are thoroughly involved in a living system, and from that they ASSUME physicalness is causing all systemic aspects. I don’t buy for a second, with the evidence we have, that all there is to evolution is physcial processes and the physical environment. If I were an a priori physicalist, I might buy it.

Oh come now. Yes, for the most part, they have figured it out. It isn't like organic evolution can be spoken of outside the context of a living system. If you want to be skeptical about abiogenesis, I can accept that. The best most chemists can say is that we probably have an infinite universe combined with millions of years and even if the probability is extremely low, it was bound to happen at some point. I admit that isn't very satisfying. But once you have a living system, all you really need is random mutations, honed by natural selection. Now, as I outlined previously, many of the major environmental pressures that cause populations to evolve (it's important to remember this: organisms themselves do not evolve) are organic themselves. This is certainly a huge advantage to the process, but it is nothing mysterious and it is nothing non-physical.

I have no problem with postulating the existence of non-physical entities to explain phenomena that do not easily lend themselves to a physical explanation, but organic evolution is not such a phenomenon. The rate of change in base sequences, due to replication errors, crossing over, viral insertion, hybridization, and other such processes is more than enough to produce the variability that is required for evolution to occur. Once this variability is in place, selective pressures will move a given population in whatever direction it needs to move to remain in existence. The vast majority of mutations, as I have pointed out, are either neutral or even detrimental, until some selective pressure (that could not possibly have been forseen by an unintelligent, non-prognosticatory force) comes along and makes it advantageous. Take the famous example of the peppered moth. Until the industrial revolution, the few moths with more dark speckles has less chance of surviving. There was no way to tell that this would eventually become an advantage and be selected for as buildings and trees were darkened by soot.

I am simply trying to be parsimonious here. If you are going to posit the existence of a non-physical, directive force to evolution, you'll need to provide some good reason to believe that such a thing is necessary. An old philosophy professor of mine used an example of invisible goblins that help move the hands around a clock. He continued to point out that we couldn't prove they weren't there, but if we can explain the motion of the clock simply by detailing the way the different gears and circuits work, why postulate the existence of an additional force at work? Personal incredulity alone is not a sufficient reason. When evolution is so well explained using purely physical terminology, why insist that something more is at work there?

I don’t think you do understand my hypothesis because none of that is relevant to it. I will try to explain what I mean once more. Keep in mind that it was you who asked me to hypothesize about all this when I said up front I didn’t think this was the place for me to speculate. There isn’t enough room here for me to account for everything I need to make my case.

Anyway, I’ll start with an anology. If I were trying to teach you the concept of follow-through on a tennis swing, my lesson (not that you need one) would be to get you to feel the naturalness of follow-through. There was this guy, I think his name was Tim Galway, who wrote a best seller years ago called “The Inner Game of Tennis.” He said he could teach people who never had a racquet in their hand how to hit the ball effectively in an hour. The show “60 Minutes” took him up on the offer, and he did it! His approach was to have students learn to feel one’s way to the proper swing, and to do that ahead of breaking down a swing into minute detail.

All I can do here is repeat that this is not a good analogy. Hitting a tennis ball is an action that requires the coordinated effort of many bodily systems, all interacting with the nervous system, which is clearly in control. DNA replication, on the other hand, is a closed system. The only extent to which a holistic force could be holistic would be to encompass all of the machinery used, which is limited to a couple of enzymes and protein scaffolds, and of course, the strands themselves, all closed off within the nucleus of a cell. Heck, the DNA is curled up within chromatin right before and right after replication. It isn't even exposed to the internal environment of the nucleus itself for more than a split second.

The point is, there is no interaction between DNA replication and any other part of an organism, at any level. There is certainly no interaction with the CNS, which your hypothesis considers to be the seat of consciousness within the body. Another thing this analogy does not consider is that the expression of a mutation does not occur until a new organism develops. The base-substitutions or deletions themselves occur within germ cells, either sperm or ovum. In the case of an ovum, a given mutation might not be expressed until 30-40 years after the initial replication error. This is not akin to swinging a tennis racket.

You keep wanting to make the force detailed, but that is not what I, at least, have been saying. If you want to describe it as a detailed, computing, thinking, rational force, then that is your model, not mine. The progressive organizing force I envision is “whole,” it acts holistically, and it’s nature is to move things in the direction of organization (if you want to call that nature “purpose,” I am fine with that). I am making no other claims about it!

Forget the idea of "purpose." At this point, I just want some hint at how the expression of a given mutation can be pushed in any particular direction when the system within which the error occurs is a closed system and the error may not be expressed for several decades. Don't forget also that mutations due to replication errors are only a small part of how we get the variability necessary for evolution. Are crossing over, hybridization, aneuploidy, viral symbiosis, and mutation due to radiation also controlled by your evolutive force? It would need to control breeding habits, wind and water current patterns, viral infection vectors, and many other environmental and intraorganismic factors. It's really quite mind-boggling. I'm not asking for a complete detailed explanation of how this would be achieved; that would be virtually impossible. But when all you give is "holistically," heck, what does that even mean in this context? I understand what it means within the context of nervous/muscular actions (i.e. the analogies you have given), but that understanding does not extend to this particular context. As of right now, "holistic" is probably factually meaningless in this context.

Now, as far as an organism’s awareness affecting evolution, again you are bogged down in the minutia of bio-complexity.

Well, I understand your quandry here. You've proposed an entirely new force and there is no known mechanism by which it operates nor even any language associated with it. Your task is not easy. If you want an analogy from the world of biology, consider Gregor Mendel. When he proposed his model of heredity, he knew nothing whatsoever of meiosis or molecular genetics. In fact, he was very lucky to choose examples of discrete heredity that fit his model in his experiments. But to make this hypothesis meaningful in any way, you'll have to propose some testable means by which it operates. First, outline what needs to be explained. Then outline how your hypothesis explains it. Then outline what we would expect to find if your hypothesis is correct. This is not just minutia. This is what takes us beyond philosophy into science, and ultimately any theory of evolution must be scientific, whether or not it includes non-physical elements. I don't want caveats about the limitations of sense perception. We can't use our senses to detect an electron either, but we are still able to use it meaningfully in scientific models. As it is, we cannot detect the physical mechanism by which a mutation occurs. We just know that a certain base is selected; we don't know how, and yet we still build a model around this occurence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Oh come now. Yes, for the most part, they have figured it out. . . . once you have a living system, all you really need is random mutations, honed by natural selection. . . it is nothing mysterious and it is nothing non-physical.

You know, I do not need these on-going biology lectures. You aren't telling me anything I don't already understand. I can do without "Oh come now" too. Further, those statements you made above are pure physicalistic dogma; that you state them as "fact" let's me know it is a waste of time talking about them with you.

If you are going to posit the existence of a non-physical, directive force to evolution, you'll need to provide some good reason to believe that such a thing is necessary.

Grrrrrrrrrr . . . I told you I didn't want to debate it here. What I "posited" was meant to be a quickie "possibly it happens like this" in response to your request. If I'd known you were baiting me I wouldn't have said anything.

I am simply trying to be parsimonious here.An old philosophy professor of mine used an example of invisible goblins that help move the hands around a clock. He continued to point out that we couldn't prove they weren't there, but if we can explain the motion of the clock simply by detailing the way the different gears and circuits work, why postulate the existence of an additional force at work? Personal incredulity alone is not a sufficient reason. When evolution is so well explained using purely physical terminology, why insist that something more is at work there?

Jesus, do I really need to hear this? Tell it to some high schoolers please.

All I can do here is repeat that this is not a good analogy. Hitting a tennis ball is an action that requires the coordinated effort of many bodily systems, all interacting with the nervous system, which is clearly in control. DNA replication, on the other hand, is a closed system. The only extent to which a holistic force could be holistic would be to encompass all of the machinery used, which is limited to a couple of enzymes and protein scaffolds, and of course, the strands themselves, all closed off within the nucleus of a cell. Heck, the DNA is curled up within chromatin right before and right after replication. It isn't even exposed to the internal environment of the nucleus itself for more than a split second. . . . In the case of an ovum, a given mutation might not be expressed until 30-40 years after the initial replication error. This is not akin to swinging a tennis racket.

I don't know how it is any more possible to miss my point. Plus, it was YOU who asked me to explain what I meant by a progressive force, yet in every case you switch the conversation to mechanisms of biology. If you want to have that conversation, then have it with someone who is looking to talk about that.

I'm not asking for a complete detailed explanation of how this would be achieved; that would be virtually impossible. But when all you give is "holistically," heck, what does that even mean in this context? I understand what it means within the context of nervous/muscular actions (i.e. the analogies you have given), but that understanding does not extend to this particular context. As of right now, "holistic" is probably factually meaningless in this context.

This is not a biology forum, this is philosophy. We were talking what if's and you've used that opportunistically to nitpick, drown us in details, and otherwise interfer with having a philosophical discussion. I'm not interested in playing this game.

 

[loseyourname]

You seem to have your what-ifs down pretty well. I'm sorry if I wanted to dig a little deeper. For what it's worth, the author of the thread hasn't been in in a while and I doubt he cares. Also for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to discredit your hypothesis. It does genuinely intrigue me. Just remember that a philosophical model that attempts to explain biological entities is going to have to get a little biological at some point.

 

[balkan]

I'll say this one more time. I do not and have not participated in mind games. What I was trying to say earlier is that what seems absurd to you actually makes sense to others. It depends on background and perspective. I contend that you have come to the conclusions that you have because you do not understand the topic and it is quite obvious that you do not want to. Also, I don't "believe" in any view. I think about things a lot. If you could hear the internal debate in my mind you'd understand why I say I don't have a steadfast belief.

I skipped merrily around nothing. I hit it straight on. I asked you a very specific question (which you didn't answer) to directly respond to all your "Mary" comments. I asked you if you are claiming that babies do not have experiences. The reason you do not see this as a direct response is because perhaps you do not understand the point of these illustrations to begin with. Seeing the color red is but one example of qualia. It's too easy for you to pick apart an example like this and dazzle us with irrelevant physics knowledge. So I'm raising the real issue. You're claiming that babies do not have experiences. Right?

i understand perfectly, and don't patronize me. you didn't adress one single point, you just fired another mind game question back at me.
yes, babys have experiences. thay also have a brain. what does this has to do with anything?
and you don't get to decide what i believe or not... i do believe there might be something else, i even hope for it, but those mind games are ridiculous non the less... I'm not attacking "something else" at all, since that would be attacking my own beliefs, but i am adressing the profound lack of both objectivity, rationality and fact in the arguments... furthermore, i'd like to add, that if there was "something else" i doubt it would reside within the human brain... it would probably be somewhere else... that idea is so arrogant... why the hell should the human mind be anymore special than a dolphins (other than the size)...

the mary example is false and totally disregards everything we know about the brain.. it tries to twist words into something relevant...
the reason why we can't explain the experience of the color red to mary is, that the vision center in the brain is totally different from the hearing center, learning centers and verbal center... it is a distinct neural center, that needs to learn colors through vision, just like the ear has to learn sound through the ears and not the eyes... so it is a mind game, or a trick of words if you like.
i perfectly understand the point of it (that physics couldn't explain the color to her)... but unlike you, i am not amazed by this fact, since to learn the color red, she would need the right kind of impulses... the physics do, on the other hand, account for both why and how she can or cannot see the color red, and furthermore accounts for properties of the ligth itself... i must admit though, that it is a clever mind game, and if people didn't take it serious and thought it to be true, but instead used it as a way to test their own objectivity, i might even like it...

as for the john/zohn ridiculous (i know you're pissed at me for using that word, but that is my hones oppinion) thought experiment:
First of all: The statement that the case of two identical (atom by atom) beings existing while one has got qualia and the other hasn't, is claimed to be both logical and plausible by the author... yes of course it is, cause the author believes in the "something else" theory, so it's quite logic to him, but to someone who thinks consciousness is a neurological phenomenon, this makes absolutely no sense! This is a highly subjective argument that only has validity because the author is biased towards the "something else" theory.
Secondly: for the two characters to have identical atomic configurations, doesn't mean that their chemical and electromagnetic signals are the same, due to quantum mechanical probabilities... the changes of the energy states of their constructs are random and would of course differ... if we talk about them having grown up, they would be quite a lot different even.
Thirdly: For them to have obtained exactly the same experiences, would require them to occupy the exact same space all their lives, in which case they would be one.
So it is a rediculous argument that only makes sense if you're biased towards "something else"... if you had been objective, you would have noticed the highly subjective initial argument.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is not a biology forum, this is philosophy. We were talking what if's and you've used that opportunistically to nitpick, drown us in details, and otherwise interfer with having a philosophical discussion. I'm not interested in playing this game.

What is obvious is that you have a non falsifiable, entirely defensive position with the property that whatever experiments you are shown, you can declare "Nah, that doesn't convince me!" To which the proper reply is, who the hell cares if you are convinced.

 

[balkan]

"This is not a biology forum, this is philosophy. We were talking what if's and you've used that opportunistically to nitpick, drown us in details, and otherwise interfer with having a philosophical discussion. I'm not interested in playing this game."

philosophy has to take ground in science to be of any use... otherwise it's just a group of people discussing their very subjective oppinion and trying to convince each other, that even though they have absolutely no evidence, their oppinion is the rigth one...

this is the metaphysics and epistemology forum, biology is only irrellevant if you consider the mind to be other than a neurologic phenomenon... well newsflash: a lot of people consider the mind to be a neurologic phenomenon, so your oppinion about whether biology should be included or not, is quite irellevant.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You seem to have your what-ifs down pretty well. I'm sorry if I wanted to dig a little deeper. For what it's worth, the author of the thread hasn't been in in a while and I doubt he cares. Also for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to discredit your hypothesis. It does genuinely intrigue me. Just remember that a philosophical model that attempts to explain biological entities is going to have to get a little biological at some point.

I am extremely happy that we are all having this type of discussion. Some of the exchanges in this thread have been among the best I've had at PF. I didn't think you were trying to discredit my hypothesis; my frustration was due to trying reason inductively, which I thought you asked me to do, and then feeling like you were insisting I make the inductive exercise follow deductive rules.

Nereid's quote "Earnest explication by two groups of people, frustration, talking past each other, puzzlement that the others 'just don't get it'" I think well characterizes the typical situation when people are looking at a subject both deductively and inductively. So a decision has to be made about what sort of reasoning has priority for any given discussion.

I realize at a science-oriented site that induction isn't going to be appropriate for most of the forums. Nothing can be "proven" through induction, it is purely a theoretical exercise every time. That’s why it is better suited to philosophy than science. However, something I have lobbied for in the PF philosophy area is to have evidence-based induction as the standard for philosophy. If you visit other sites devoted to pure philosophy, I think you would notice how little evidence is relied on in debates. The standard is rationalistic. I’ve been somewhat confronting to people who come here wanting to do rationalism. Even though it’s not my place to decide, I really hope those of us interested in philosophy fight to keep it out of here.

The rationalist variety of philosophizing never decides anything because they don’t take time to solidify their starting assumptions with evidence. A typical example might be someone starting off a discussion about God saying, “if God is all-powerful . . .” Now, God is a possibility which is supported by reports through the centuries, so it isn’t totally out in left field to tentatively assume, for the sake of discussing an issue related to that assumption, there is something real that’s been referred to as “God.” Also, if God exists and is responsible for creation, then God must be powerful, so again we have a reason for the assumption. But why is “all-powerful” assumed?

The question of all-powerful or not itself is rather insignificant, but it does illustrate my point, which is that the discussion would be stronger if we don’t assume something we can’t justify with some kind of evidence. If we build an inductive model from unsupported assumptions, then we cannot have the slightest bit of realistic confidence in conclusions we reach. What is the point of wasting time reasoning about something only to end up in as much doubt as we started with?

The strongest induction I’ve seen is that which uses evidence as “steps” leading toward some model that is consistent with observed facts. Reasoning analogously, if rocks were placed across a lake so someone can cross it, then the rocks can’t be so far apart that the person is unable to leap to the next rock (of course, someone might position a “rock” far off in the distance and use that as an azimuth while attempting to place the necessary steps in between).

The reason I am talking about this is to suggest to those predisposed to reduction that if we can develop this idea of evidence-based induction, then maybe more people at PF would feel comfortable participating in philosophical discussions (even proposals insinuating something nonphysical! )

 

[Locrian]

I read the entire first page carefully. The only attempt anyone made to define the meaning of "explain" as it used here was Sleeth when he said "if when you use the term "explain" you mean prove." In light of the history of physics, I feel this is an awful definition.

In my humble opinion this post couldn't have possibly produced any interesting dialogue without dealing with that word carefully first, and even if it happened later, it seems to me it was too late to recover.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is obvious is that you have a non falsifiable, entirely defensive position with the property that whatever experiments you are shown, you can declare "Nah, that doesn't convince me!" To which the proper reply is, who the hell cares if you are convinced.

Why don't we eliminate philosophizing altogether then? "Falsifiable" isn't even an appropriate standard for speculation, which I have clearly labeled my points you are now criticizing for lack of falsifiability! More strawman low blows.

True, it isn't important whether or not I personally am "convinced." I probably shouldn't use that phase. I use it to mean that given the logical stance I've assumed, some counterargument just presented doesn't really counter it. In this debate, a counterargument that has been made repeatedly is that the huge list of physical facts involved in biology is overwhelming evidence that life is nothing but physical. No matter how I try to address the flaw in that argument, some simply repeat the same exact argument again, and again and again . . . It would be more honest to come out and openly express one's embedded contempt for any "what ifs" that can't reduced to physical facts.

 

[Les Sleeth]

philosophy has to take ground in science to be of any use... otherwise it's just a group of people discussing their very subjective oppinion and trying to convince each other, that even though they have absolutely no evidence, their oppinion is the rigth one...

A lot of people far more educated in philosophy than either of us would strongly disagree with you about that. However, I would agree that philosophy should be grounded in evidence. Where I differ is that I think there are other sorts of evidence besides what science can provide.

this is the metaphysics and epistemology forum, biology is only irrellevant if you consider the mind to be other than a neurologic phenomenon... well newsflash: a lot of people consider the mind to be a neurologic phenomenon, so your oppinion about whether biology should be included or not, is quite irellevant.

I never said biology was irrelevant. I never said biology shouldn't be included. I was saying that insisting philosophy be reductionist eliminates the entire purpose of philosophy. If you want to be purely reductionist, then why are you in the philosophy area?

 

[nolachrymose]

I think this poll is missing a choice: "it cannot be."

The physical world is only real to you, as given by your senses. Reality is defined by a group of people whose senses give them similar experiences (thus the idea of "sane" and "insane"). Therefore, describing the physical world can only be applicable to a single reality.

Anyways, why would you want to be able to describe *everything*? Knowledge is not always beneficial -- mystery can be far greater.

 

[Royce]

The reason I am talking about this is to suggest to those predisposed to reduction that if we can develop this idea of evidence-based induction, then maybe more people at PF would feel comfortable participating in philosophical discussions (even proposals insinuating something nonphysical! )

Hey, Les, I've tried! But you guys keep ignoring me and my posts

One of the problems that I have seen with this whole doscussion is that LYN insists on arguing from a reductionist position and as you say use deduction where as you are argueing conceptionally and using induction. Never the twain shall meet, to steal and paraphrase the old adage. Again it is apples and oranges. Yeah, they are both fruit but not of the same vine.

One problem that I have with LYN's argument is that he seems to think that the theory of evolution is a done deal in that it is both complete and comprehensive; and, that it is completely explained by biochemists and genetist. Its not there is still much that cannot be completely explained by anyone theory. The first example that comes to mind is that it mutation is random DNA events then how can we explain the increasing complexity of genomes. The human genome is billions of bits long and still contains date from the simplest organisms that are unused and as far as we can tell unnecessary. Yet they are still there. Also the fact that there are living organisms such as turtles and crocadiles that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Of course this also counters our arrow toward increasing complexity.

Okay, I've put in my 2 cents worth. You can go back to ignoring me again.

 

[loseyourname]

One of the problems that I have seen with this whole doscussion is that LYN insists on arguing from a reductionist position and as you say use deduction where as you are argueing conceptionally and using induction.

I don't know where you guys get the idea that I'm using deductive reasoning to establish anything. Science is an inductive discipline. We see that whatever we put in the lab or observe in nature behaves according to certain laws many times when observed under the same conditions, and we induce that these laws will always hold under these conditions.

One problem that I have with LYN's argument is that he seems to think that the theory of evolution is a done deal in that it is both complete and comprehensive; and, that it is completely explained by biochemists and genetist.

When did I ever say this? I've said many times there are still a great of deal of questions pertaining to tempo and taxonomic relationships. In fact, even the mechanisms are not completely impervious to questioning. We certainly know that the factors I've listed previously play into it, but there could very well be more. We needed to introduce endosymbiosis to explain the evolution of the eukaryotic cell. We may very well need to introduce some other mechanism to explain abiogenesis and the evolution of consciousness. I can't say for certain and neither can anyone else. What I can say is that the evolution of increased complexity, once a living cell is in place, is perfectly explained. Anyone that contends otherwise likely has not properly studied or understood the subject.

Its not there is still much that cannot be completely explained by anyone theory. The first example that comes to mind is that it mutation is random DNA events then how can we explain the increasing complexity of genomes. The human genome is billions of bits long and still contains date from the simplest organisms that are unused and as far as we can tell unnecessary. Yet they are still there. Also the fact that there are living organisms such as turtles and crocadiles that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Of course this also counters our arrow toward increasing complexity.

All right, now this is where it gets frustrating. I'm not going to sit here and insult you, but all of this is explained perfectly well. The fact that you are unaware of the explanations and it seems improbably to you is of little consequence. Both you and Sleeth have perfectly valid reasons for believing that "something more" exists and is needed to explain certain phenomena within the universe. These are not among them.

Read through some of the threads in the biology forum. Most of the questions you've raised have been addressed there in the past. As far as the turtles and crocodiles go, the reason they haven't changed much (it is fallacious to say that they haven't evolved at all - the species around today are not the same as the ones around millions of years ago) is that they fit their niche pretty well. It's the same reason we still have bacteria on this planet. That doesn't mean that there aren't other niches that aren't fit by bacteria and turtles and crocodiles that are there waiting to be filled. When a subpopulation of crocs moves into an environment where they aren't properly adapted, they evolve, and there are plenty of extant species that are not crocodiles that evolved from crocodiles. It's just that the parent population that remained in the environment it is adapted to has not had any need to evolve much and so has remained a crocodile. Evolution is not a simple, linear process. It is complex and relationships are not easy to track. It is a rich subject and if you have any honest desire to learn about it, head on down to your local library.

 

[balkan]

I am extremely happy that we are all having this type of discussion. Some of the exchanges in this thread have been among the best I've had at PF. I didn't think you were trying to discredit my hypothesis; my frustration was due to trying reason inductively, which I thought you asked me to do, and then feeling like you were insisting I make the inductive exercise follow deductive rules.

Nereid's quote "Earnest explication by two groups of people, frustration, talking past each other, puzzlement that the others 'just don't get it'" I think well characterizes the typical situation when people are looking at a subject both deductively and inductively. So a decision has to be made about what sort of reasoning has priority for any given discussion.

I realize at a science-oriented site that induction isn't going to be appropriate for most of the forums. Nothing can be "proven" through induction, it is purely a theoretical exercise every time. That’s why it is better suited to philosophy than science. However, something I have lobbied for in the PF philosophy area is to have evidence-based induction as the standard for philosophy. If you visit other sites devoted to pure philosophy, I think you would notice how little evidence is relied on in debates. The standard is rationalistic. I’ve been somewhat confronting to people who come here wanting to do rationalism. Even though it’s not my place to decide, I really hope those of us interested in philosophy fight to keep it out of here.

The rationalist variety of philosophizing never decides anything because they don’t take time to solidify their starting assumptions with evidence. A typical example might be someone starting off a discussion about God saying, “if God is all-powerful . . .” Now, God is a possibility which is supported by reports through the centuries, so it isn’t totally out in left field to tentatively assume, for the sake of discussing an issue related to that assumption, there is something real that’s been referred to as “God.” Also, if God exists and is responsible for creation, then God must be powerful, so again we have a reason for the assumption. But why is “all-powerful” assumed?

The question of all-powerful or not itself is rather insignificant, but it does illustrate my point, which is that the discussion would be stronger if we don’t assume something we can’t justify with some kind of evidence. If we build an inductive model from unsupported assumptions, then we cannot have the slightest bit of realistic confidence in conclusions we reach. What is the point of wasting time reasoning about something only to end up in as much doubt as we started with?

The strongest induction I’ve seen is that which uses evidence as “steps” leading toward some model that is consistent with observed facts. Reasoning analogously, if rocks were placed across a lake so someone can cross it, then the rocks can’t be so far apart that the person is unable to leap to the next rock (of course, someone might position a “rock” far off in the distance and use that as an azimuth while attempting to place the necessary steps in between).

The reason I am talking about this is to suggest to those predisposed to reduction that if we can develop this idea of evidence-based induction, then maybe more people at PF would feel comfortable participating in philosophical discussions (even proposals insinuating something nonphysical! )

i don't think I've ever agreed with you so much... ever
The sky is falling? :D
what i do believe though, for a philosophy to have any meaning what so ever, reduction has to be done... it is inevitable, otherwise it is just a mind game (which isn't bad at all in itself, but some philosophers tend to consider these mind and word games as "truth", something i highly oppose of)...

also, i am open to any suggestions about the other evidense, i really am, but what i have been presented yet is something that, when i look at it objectively, can be easily placed in the "subjective," "plain out wrong" or "narrowscoped logic" categorys...
with narrowscoped, I'm e.g. talking about the mary example, which, if the brain did function as a whole, would have been quite more substantial... except maybe from the fact, that you cannot explain impulses to other people, you can only describe their nature... no matter how well you describe an atom you can't see that either without an STM or AFM device...

 

[Les Sleeth]

What is obvious is that you have a non falsifiable, entirely defensive position . . .

By the way, is abiogenesis falsifiable?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't know where you guys get the idea that I'm using deductive reasoning to establish anything. Science is an inductive discipline. We see that whatever we put in the lab or observe in nature behaves according to certain laws many times when observed under the same conditions, and we induce that these laws will always hold under these conditions.

I don't think there are many who would agree with you that the practice of science is primarily inductive. The only aspect which is inductive is theorization and, as you say, when it's inferred that laws will hold under all similar conditions; but once it's time to get down to research, that is deductive. The "scientific method" is a deductive map, probably the finest bit of deduction ever formulated.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hey, Les, I've tried! But you guys keep ignoring me and my posts

Sorry, in the heat of the battle I missed your earlier post.

One of the problems that I have seen with this whole doscussion is that LYN insists on arguing from a reductionist position and as you say use deduction where as you are argueing conceptionally and using induction. Never the twain shall meet, to steal and paraphrase the old adage. Again it is apples and oranges. Yeah, they are both fruit but not of the same vine.

I hope you are wrong about the two never meeting. One thing I think philosophy desparately needs is "grounding."

 

[loseyourname]

Reductionism can certainly be met by more holistic evaluations. I would argue the best example out there is evolution, in particular heredity. Take the example of Gregor Mendel that I used earlier. Using a holistic approach, he formulated a general theory of discrete heredity. When the reductionist approach of molecular genetics finally came around, we came upon a reason why Mendel's theory was correct. Similarly, the idea of evolution was nothing new when Darwin published. It was thought by many people, based on the obvious implications of the fossil record, that species had evolved. But it took Darwin and his reductionist theory of natural selection to explain how this could have happened.

 

[loseyourname]

In both cases, it was induced from a holistic analysis that something (whether it be discrete heredity or evolution) was going on. It took a reductionist approach to prove that this was indeed the case and to explain how this was the case. This is really all I'm trying to do here. Sleeth has holistically evaluated the situation he sees and induced certain conclusions. I want him to now take a more reductionist approach and move beyond this to get to the all important "how" that can lead to genuine confirmation of his hypothesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

i don't think I've ever agreed with you so much... ever
The sky is falling? :D
what i do believe though, for a philosophy to have any meaning what so ever, reduction has to be done... it is inevitable, otherwise it is just a mind game (which isn't bad at all in itself, but some philosophers tend to consider these mind and word games as "truth", something i highly oppose of)...

Right, that is what I was referring to as "rationalistic," and I too see it, except for tautologies, as word (or concept) games. The great thing about science is the addition of experience to the truth-seeking formula. But reduction isn't the only source of knowledge. For example, someone might open the drapes in room where you are sleeping, and it wakes you up. That experience is quickly recognized for what it is . . . say, the brightening of the room. You don't need to do any research to know that. So I think one can "know" directly from experience.

. . . also, i am open to any suggestions about the other evidense, i really am . . .

Most people of the physicalist persuasion think there's been no experience of the "something more" we've been discussing. But that may not be true. There is a history of people who've reported that "something more" can be known experientially (and I am not talking religion); it has often been described as being immune to accurate conceptualization, but quite friendly to direct experience.

Now, if we assume people have experienced it, the next issue for a philosophical discussion becomes -- what does the experience tell us about the nature of reality? That's where all the trouble comes. Using the analogy above, one person might say the light filling the room when the drapes are opened is God flowing through the window, while another interprets it as EM. So the experience is one thing, and the interpretations of the experience are another.

In my opinion, one of the smartest guys ever to talk about something more was the Buddha because he refused to speculate about "what it meant." His advice was (more or less), "experience it and decide for yourself what it 'means'."

 

[Les Sleeth]

In both cases, it was induced from a holistic analysis that something (whether it be discrete heredity or evolution) was going on. It took a reductionist approach to prove that this was indeed the case and to explain how this was the case. This is really all I'm trying to do here. Sleeth has holistically evaluated the situation he sees and induced certain conclusions. I want him to now take a more reductionist approach and move beyond this to get to the all important "how" that can lead to genuine confirmation of his hypothesis.

As I said to Nereid, that's not my thing. There are plenty of reductionists in this world a lot more qualified than me to check out the "how." I prefer to specialize in induction, and to search for insight into "why."

 

[Royce]

In both cases, it was induced from a holistic analysis that something (whether it be discrete heredity or evolution) was going on. It took a reductionist approach to prove that this was indeed the case and to explain how this was the case. This is really all I'm trying to do here. Sleeth has holistically evaluated the situation he sees and induced certain conclusions. I want him to now take a more reductionist approach and move beyond this to get to the all important "how" that can lead to genuine confirmation of his hypothesis.

It was not and is not my intention to criticize you, deductive reasoning nor reductionism or reductionist thinking. I was making an observation. I also apologize for both my spelling (I was in a hurry and didn't have spell check of that computer) and for going off half cocked about evolution. While I have been following this discussion with interest, I misunderstood the direction and purpose of your argument. Again my only defense is that I was in a hurry and didn't consider my post well enough.

Part of the problem as I see it is that what both Les, I and others have experienced and that leads us to what and how we think and believe, by its very nature, absolutely defies reductive analysis. It is not just holistic but conceptually holistic. What I, at least, experience is an entire complete concept that often takes months to realize, understand and integrate into our thinking. As soon as we (I) try to analyze it by taking it apart and examining it piece by piece we lose the concept. Only by holistic or Big Picture
thinking can we attempt to get a hold of it or better get our minds wrapped around it. This is one of the main reasons I am of the Platonic school rather than the Aristotelean school.

It is never a matter of how something happens but that it is, it happens and why. While I agree that we must find a common ground on which to discuss, argue and learn, I cannot see such a ground between holistic and reductionistic thinking, they're opposites and mutually exclusive in my mind. As far as inductive and deductive thinking is concerned I don't see any problem at all. Both are extremely valuable and useful tools so long as they are properly applied, a hammer for a nail and a screwdriver for a screw.
Both are needed and can both be used at the same time and are often most productive when used together. Maybe that can be the common ground for this discussion so long as we make it clear which mode we are using at the moment.

In any event, I also am enjoying this discussion and wish it to continue so long as I can reserve the right to interject my thoughts occasionally.

 

[Philocrat]

I wouldn't want you to steer clear of any meaningful question -- that's what philosophy is all about -- so good questions are never irritating. I was only suggesting you pose one such brain-breaker per thread.




This question would make an excellent thread subject, for example.

You have a point...but I am also thinking of how these questions can be adapted and answered (or attempted to be answered) under this thread. Admittedly, they decisively appear unrelated to the battles under this thread. Let me scratch my head and maybe something will turn up sooner or later.

 

[Philocrat]

Reductionism can certainly be met by more holistic evaluations. I would argue the best example out there is evolution, in particular heredity. Take the example of Gregor Mendel that I used earlier. Using a holistic approach, he formulated a general theory of discrete heredity. When the reductionist approach of molecular genetics finally came around, we came upon a reason why Mendel's theory was correct. Similarly, the idea of evolution was nothing new when Darwin published. It was thought by many people, based on the obvious implications of the fossil record, that species had evolved. But it took Darwin and his reductionist theory of natural selection to explain how this could have happened.

Reductionism is already writtten into holistic or general principles. Subsequently, when consciousness has elevated itself to a superior height, the former would become an indistinguishable component of the latter. The only question is how consciousness could be rendered fully purposive and so elevated.

 

[Philocrat]

The claim that consciousness may have no purpose on the evolutionary pathways of life

Well, this seems decisively so, but then why was consciousness devised in the first place? Well, if we accept that some forms of life are more advanced than others, then consciousness ought to be a very usefull device for an advanced form of life. The three-dimensional character of consciousness makes it even more so. When people ask me about the purpose of conscousness I always answer:

We INQUIRE and ACQUIRE to AVOID!

That is, conscousness has three distinctivly useful aspects or modes: (1) the Inquaisitive mode, (2) The Acquisitive Mode and (3) the Precautionary Mode, and together they define the fundamental purpose of consciousness.

On the issue of random possibilities or designs umdermining or defeating the purpose of consciousness, I say that this view is irrelevant because the puropose of anything, including consciousness, could be either way, premeditated or unexpected. If we took the route of there being an intelligent designer, he or she may have thought of the purpose of the design before hand. Equally, if we took the route of random design, its purpose may have been realized afterwards. In this case, we perceive the usefulness of randomly derived entity from its function or outward behaviour.

However, this does not solve problem of the possibility of progress from any purposive inteligent or random design. That is, how do things progress from the purpose we know of them?

 

[loseyourname]

Traits are selected for that provide the organism with an increased chance to reproduce. Length of survival is irrelevant as long as it reaches breeding age. Do you honestly not see how being conscious of a potential mate's preferences and tastes and being conscious of your own looks and behavior would be helpful here?

Did anybody actually read this the first time around?

 

[Fliption]

i understand perfectly, and don't patronize me. you didn't adress one single point, you just fired another mind game question back at me.

This is just not true. And I'm going to do my damnest to try to show you.

yes, babys have experiences. thay also have a brain. what does this has
to do with anything?

It seems to have everything to do with it. You said the experience of redness was learned. So either you believe that all experiences are learned (which would mean that babies have no experiences) or you believe that some experiences are learned and some are not. In the second option, you would claim the experience of redness is learned but you have some other experience in mind that isn't learned. Now that you have said that babies have experiences above, it must be this second option that you believe. So which experience is it that babies can have without having to learn it?

and you don't get to decide what i believe or not... i

No, but I do get to decide what I believe about what you believe

furthermore, i'd like to add, that if there was "something else" i doubt it would reside within the human brain... it would probably be somewhere else... that idea is so arrogant... why the hell should the human mind be anymore special than a dolphins (other than the size)...

You're preaching to the choir. If I've said anything to insinuate I'm defending this position then I take it back now! I don't believe that "something more", if it exists, resides in humans any more than it does in dolphins or even rocks.

the mary example is false and totally disregards everything we know about the brain.. it tries to twist words into something relevant...
the reason why we can't explain the experience of the color red to mary is, that the vision center in the brain is totally different from the hearing center, learning centers and verbal center... it is a distinct neural center, that needs to learn colors through vision, just like the ear has to learn sound through the ears and not the eyes... so it is a mind game, or a trick of words if you like.

There's just something about your point that is not clicking with me. Let me try something. I suspect that you and I have a different perspective on the concept of qualia and that's what is driving this difference in interpretation.

It seems like you have an issue with the fact that Mary can't possibly have "redness" communicated to her because the brain has to learn to do vision. So what if we tweak this example a bit and say that Mary has not always been blind. She had sight for most of her life and understands the experience of color. She has only recently become blind. Now let's say that a brand new color is sweeping the fashion industry and everyone is talking about this new color. Some people are even painting their houses this color. Mary is very curious. So she reads(the way blind people read) all the scientific facts about this new color. Dispite learning every physical fact about this light frequency, she is still missing a piece of information about this color. The only way she can receive this information is to experience it. So this piece of information is clearly out of the hands of physics to provide.

Is this example any better against your objections? I'm not sure because I haven't quite grasped why you're struggling with this so much.

Again, I'm suspecting that the key is our understanding of qualia so I'll just emphasize that while the brain may have to learn to do the processes required for what we call vision, there is no process that has been identified as responsible for producing the "qualia" associated with the visual data. We don't know how this happens. So while the brain may Learn to see, we can't say it learns qualia. We have no idea where qualia fits into this picture. If you disagree with this then this is our problem.

First of all: The statement that the case of two identical (atom by atom) beings existing while one has got qualia and the other hasn't, is claimed to be both logical and plausible by the author... yes of course it is, cause the author believes in the "something else" theory, so it's quite logic to him, but to someone who thinks consciousness is a neurological phenomenon, this makes absolutely no sense! This is a highly subjective argument that only has validity because the author is biased towards the "something else" theory.
Secondly: for the two characters to have identical atomic configurations, doesn't mean that their chemical and electromagnetic signals are the same, due to quantum mechanical probabilities...

Grrrrr... Sounds like you're speaking about the zombie illustration. And just like so many before you, you have gotten distracted with it's irrelevant points and taken it too literally. I just hate this illustration. It is probably the single biggest mistake Chalmers made in designing his argument. This is just my opinion from what I've observed in this forum and read in opposing works. Hypnagogue may come in and hit me with a stick lol but this just seems like such a sloppy illustration. There are too many unnecessary pieces of information that people get hung up on. I'll see if I can help you understand the point as I understand it.

Do you believe that, in principle, a robot can be built so that it can sense the world as a human does? We know that robots do exist today. So it makes sense that, in principle, technology can improve to the point that we can replicate every known physical process in the eyes, ears, toungue, nose, and skin to allow the robot to sense it's suroundings just as we do. The robot can then be given a computer brain to process that incoming data and execute instructions. We can program this brain to process this information using every physical process that the human brain performs. It will even seem human as it goes about its day. If you do not think that this can be done in principal, then this illustration stops here and you will need to explain why this cannot be done, in principle. But if you think that this can be done, in principle, then there is one question to ask. Is this robot conscious?

It's eyes are basically cameras feeding pixel data to a computer which computes movement instructions. Is this robot experiencing vision? Is it processing color as XX wavelength or is it experiencing the qualia of color? If you say I don't know(which is what everyone I know would say) then why don't you know? IF it does every physical process that a human does and humans are conscious why can't you be sure? This means that none of the physical processes that you programmed into this robot necessarily entail consciousness. There is no consciousness subroutine that you can point to and say "yeah there's where I programmed it in". It is perfectly conceivable that a robot could do everything that you and I do and we would have no idea that it was even a robot. It could move, eat, behave just like a human. This can all be programmed in.(I often wonder why life is conscious at all. It doesn't seem that we need it.) This robot can be programmed to survive and thrive. Why should it be "aware" of anything? And how can you prove that anything or anyone is aware and experiencing qualia, anyway? What physical process will you point to to prove it? Your scientific machinery can monitor my eyes and see all the physical processes and prove that I am taking in visual data. But your machinery tells you nothing(and never willl) about what I'm actually experiencing. Why is this if it's just another physical process?

To say the answer lies in the future research of science is to say that one day we will be able to communicate to blind Mary the qualia of this new color simply by allowing her to read the scientific facts. This will never happen. Mary can learn everything there is to know about math from math books but she can learn nothing about qualia from qualia books. It is a feature of our universe that must be experienced to be understood.

Anyway, to me, this is the main point of the zombie illustration. It doesn't matter whether the two beings are identical. That's just a necessary assumption that has to be made so that someone can't claim that the slight difference between the two is what is causing the consciousness. The whole point is that I very well may not be conscious. I don't need to be conscious to do anything that you witness me doing. Therefore, all the physical processes that you can observe in me do not necessarily entail consciousness.

I'll also add that this view doesn't necessarily mean there is "something more". Many argue that consciousness, qualia etc is just a fundamental property of reality. It is not the emerging product of a physical process. It's just a fundamental element of nature much like matter and energy etc. Given the inability to reductively understand and communciate qualia, it's easy to see why many people favor this view.

So it is a rediculous argument that only makes sense if you're biased towards "something else"... if you had been objective, you would have noticed the highly subjective initial argument.

This just isn't true. At the very least you have to allow for the fact that maybe someone just doesn't understand it as well as they should. It doesn't always have to mean they are biased.

 

[Fliption]

Did anybody actually read this the first time around?

This seems like a misuse of the word conscious. I don't see how "consciousness" as we speak of it here in the philosophy forum has any benefit to survival. If you can actually prove such a thing then you can prove that a being is conscious and eliminate the philosphical debate that's been going around on this for centuries.

To say that an animal has to be conscious to notice a particular aspect of its surroundings is somewhat like saying that a security camera is conscious of its surroundings because it turns a light on by detecting movement. So either this camera is actually conscious or animals don't need to have "awareness" to sense their surroundings and compute the appropriate response.

 

[balkan]

1) It seems to have everything to do with it. You said the experience of redness was learned. So either you believe that all experiences are learned (which would mean that babies have no experiences) or you believe that some experiences are learned and some are not. So which experience is it that babies can have without having to learn it?

2) No, but I do get to decide what I believe about what you believe

3) It seems like you have an issue with the fact that Mary can't possibly have "redness" communicated to her because the brain has to learn to do vision.
Mary has not always been blind. She had sight for most of her life and understands the experience of color. Now let's say that everyone is talking about this new color. Mary reads all the scientific facts about this new color. Dispite learning every physical fact about this light frequency, she is still missing a piece of information about this color. The only way she can receive this information is to experience it. So this piece of information is clearly out of the hands of physics to provide.

4) Is this example any better against your objections? I'm not sure because I haven't quite grasped why you're struggling with this so much.

5) there is no process that has been identified as responsible for producing the "qualia" associated with the visual data. We don't know how this happens. So while the brain may Learn to see, we can't say it learns qualia. We have no idea where qualia fits into this picture. If you disagree with this then this is our problem.

6) Do you believe that, in principle, a robot can be built so that it can sense the world as a human does? So it makes sense that, in principle, technology can improve to the point that we can replicate every known physical process in the eyes, ears, toungue, nose, and skin to allow the robot to sense it's suroundings just as we do. The robot can then be given a computer brain to process that incoming data and execute instructions. We can program this brain to process this information using every physical process that the human brain performs. It will even seem human as it goes about its day. But if you think that this can be done, in principle, then there is one question to ask. Is this robot conscious?
It's eyes are basically cameras feeding pixel data to a computer which computes movement instructions. Is this robot experiencing vision? Is it processing color as XX wavelength or is it experiencing the qualia of color? If you say I don't know(which is what everyone I know would say) then why don't you know? IF it does every physical process that a human does and humans are conscious why can't you be sure?
This can all be programmed in.(I often wonder why life is conscious at all. It doesn't seem that we need it.) This robot can be programmed to survive and thrive. Why should it be "aware" of anything? And how can you prove that anything or anyone is aware and experiencing qualia, anyway? What physical process will you point to to prove it? Your scientific machinery can monitor my eyes and see all the physical processes and prove that I am taking in visual data.

7) To say the answer lies in the future research of science is to say that one day we will be able to communicate to blind Mary the qualia of this new color simply by allowing her to read the scientific facts. This will never happen.
It is a feature of our universe that must be experienced to be understood.

8) It doesn't matter whether the two beings are identical. The whole point is that I very well may not be conscious. I don't need to be conscious to do anything that you witness me doing. Therefore, all the physical processes that you can observe in me do not necessarily entail consciousness.
I'll also add that this view doesn't necessarily mean there is "something more". Many argue that consciousness, qualia etc is just a fundamental property of reality. It is not the emerging product of a physical process. It's just a fundamental element of nature much like matter and energy etc.

1) that's utter bull****... like i said, the baby has experiences... you can't grasp the meaning of the word "learn" in terms of the brain or what? (<- this is what happens when you patronize people) the baby is exposed to a great deal of input when being in the mothers womb... feeling pressure and pain doesn't have to be learned, genetically inflicted achetypes that we are afraid of (certain color patterns and shapes) doesn't have to be learned... your claim is almost offensive in it's attempt to twist something quite simple and straightforward into something that has to be either "this" or "that"...
babys are exposed to light as well in the womb, not much but a little... it is exposed to touch and chemicals from the mother that induced different moods... so what the bleeding hell are you on about?

2) fair enough... now i believe you believe in "something else" and that something else has to do with consciousness... take it or leave it...

3) you cannot communicate it verbally or in writing! this isn't hard to understand... it's quite simple. no matter how hard you try, you cannot verbally induce an electromagnetic wave to strike the retina. no one is claiming they can. you and whoever thought of that example, claim we can...
i have learned a lot of colours by being told their color compunds... like lavender, and i could probably pick something that was quite close to lavender out if i saw it, because i have learned the basic colors...
The piece of information isn't out of physical hands to explain, but it is out of the physical hands to communicate to someone else... just like you once again can't verbally communicate something to substitute an electromagnet wave striking the retina.
this doesn't mean that physics cannot describe the event itself in full details, but the event cannot be induced verbally into the brain due to the fact that it resides in a different neural center, and that to "feel" this event, it has to happen directly... is this hard to understand?
if you can't see, that this is a word game, then you are either daft, or simply unable to look at it objectively.

4) look above what happens when you patronize people...

5) what you call qualia, is what every phychologist would call "association". these "qualia" are attributed to colors, shapes and things through experience... the baby doesn't have a qualia associated with the color "lavender" until it sees it... or do you object to this?
sometimes associations are attributed to things due to flaws in the neurological curcuit... chocks and traumas can often wrongfully induce association with fear or disgust or even pleasure to something that is has nothing to do with the traumatizing event... this is called phobias...
now, these "qualia" as you call them, can be found through hypnosis... a skilled hypnotist can draw out what association you have with a e.g. color and why you have it, and sometimes even when it happened.
association and recognition of characteristics is exactly what makes the human brain so effective...

6) if it had all the abilities of the brain (every single one! including chemical reactions that make us feel comfortable, frigthened or sexually aroused... which would be equal to it having a human brain) and was exactly as sensitive in physical regards, and it had gone through series of impressions similar to that of a human, then yes, it would be conscious... why wouldn't it? just because it's eye is a camera? note however, that the camera must be sensitive to touch and be in contact with the brain curcuit presicely like a human brain...
the fact that you make a program that "acts" like a human, doesn't make it human... that makes it a program... the robot would have to have access to the same chemical influences like us and similar... which would be impossible with a conventional computer... that analogy is proof of nothing else than the fact that computers cannot replicate a human brain... impressive
"your machinery tells you nothing(and never willl) about what I'm actually experiencing. Why is this if it's just another physical process?"
if the above is not a totally subjective claim, then i don't know what is!
by monitoring your brain, scientists can tell you whether or not you experience fear, desire, sorrow or joy when seing something... that's how far brain research has come. they can even tell if you associate something with a direction... why do you claim they'll never be able to monitor what you are feeling? i thought you were objective.

7) total bull****! it cannot verbally or otherwise[/i] be communicated! that doesn't mean it cannot be explained physically! i'd really like to see you back up your statement with other than word games.

8) what are you talking about? subconsciousness? that can be monitored aswell, and the list of things that are triggered in the subconsciouss grows bigger every week, as scientists discover new things.
the human brain was a tool for survival... just like wings on a bird... it wasn't neccessary... everything could just be bacteria and you would be happy or what?
it happened and it worked... for a large number of tribes of humanoids that lived at the same time as our tribe, it didn't work, but for our specific one it did... it was a succesfull survival tool... it made us more clever than the animals that we hunted and the predators that hunted us... that doesn't go on your positive list or what?
evolution doesn't care about necessity, it just randomly evolves the species, and maybe some of them survives...

and why wouldn't you be consciouss? what are you on about?

now, patronize me again, and my next reply will be just as inpleasant in tone... you choose how we speak to each other...