[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]
[Not Logged In / Login / Register]
Sort: [Threaded | Date]
 |
|
|||
 |
Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
 |
|
A popular theory amongst strong-AI supporters is the idea that consciousness emerges from complexity. It is generally termed "epistemic emergence" or "weak emergence". It is the idea that the human mind will never possess the analytical capacity to comprehend how consciousness can be reduced to smaller parts. Therefore, consciousness is perceived as emergent, when in reality, it is wholly explainable by smaller, logical components.
[Reply] |
||||
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Does this not imply that the theory is unverifiable? If we cannot confirm that the objective data does in fact represent a specific subjective experience, are we doomed to never know if the theory is true? No theory can ever be proven true. They can only be proven false. The only alternative, IMHO, to some sort of causal emergence theory of the mind, is a subjective/objective duality. Even a true and coherent mental monism must submit to some form of emergence of the subjective human mind from the objective meta-mind. Otherwise it can't explain the facts of observed reality, such as how changes to the brain can influence the functioning of the mind. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Even a true and coherent mental monism must submit to some form of emergence of the subjective human mind from the objective meta-mind. Is it not an option to have the objective mind emerge from the subjective mind? If one is to reject weak-emergence, then it makes more sense to have structure emerge from non-structure, rather than to have non-structure emerge from structure. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Is it not an option to have the objective mind emerge from the subjective mind? That would be solipsism because the subjective/objective divide is the interface of the individual. This choice would leave entirely unexplained how the illusion of subjective reality was formed. It is an option, of course, but only a drastically desperate escape from understanding into the darkness of ultimate mystery. If one is to reject weak-emergence, then it makes more sense to have structure emerge from non-structure, rather than to have non-structure emerge from structure. There is no such thing as 'non-structure'. Structure can only emerge from structure. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
There is no such thing as 'non-structure'. How can everything be structured? Your profile claims that you are on a quest to obtain a "coherent (UNIFIED) understanding of ultimate reality." If an ultimate reality can be expressed with formulas, theorems, and other forms of language and logic, does this not contradict Gödel’s theorems? Must everything have structure? What about the spin of a sub-atomic particle? If we can reduce spin into smaller logical components, do they have to have structure too? At what point does this regression end? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
How can everything be structured? How can anything be unstructured? More to the point, how can structure arise out of non-structure? This is the dilemma that modern physics is faced with due to its denial of a causal substrate beneath the wave-nature of all matter. If you can formulate an answer to this question, then you have solved the greatest metaphysical puzzle known to man. Modern physics has no clue how to understand this. They merely take it as a given and accept to the resultant paradox. I don’t recognize paradox as an answer to anything, however, except the question of whether the theory is correct or not. If there is a paradox, then the answer is simply “NO, the theory is to some degree incorrect”. If the paradox is at the core, then the core is necessarily incorrect. Reality is far too complex to function on paradox, duality and incompatibility. Your profile claims that you are on a quest to obtain a "coherent (UNIFIED) understanding of ultimate reality." Not to obtain one, but to continue the transpersonal evolution of one. Even though my understanding is necessarily incomplete, it is nevertheless coherent and unified. If an ultimate reality can be expressed with formulas, theorems, and other forms of language and logic, does this not contradict Gödel’s theorems? Gödel’s theorems relate to the realm of representation, specifically to the realm of mathematics. It is true that no theory can completely emulate reality; this is because representation is relative, discrete and finite: reality, however, is absolute, continuous and infinite. Just because our theories and representations necessarily have limits of resolution doesn't mean that reality must also have these limits, in fact the opposite is necessarily true. Must everything have structure? What about the spin of a sub-atomic particle? Yes they too have structure despite the bizarre contradictory claims of modern physics. What do you think causes the wave nature of ALL matter including the so-called ‘fundamental’ particles? Are waves really understandable as structureless? I can’t even visualize one without giving it a structure. If we can reduce spin into smaller logical components, do they have to have structure too? At what point does this regression end? The evidence suggests that perhaps this ‘regress’ will never end. The deeper we look the more structure we find. Physics simply uses the terms “chaos”, “randomness”, and “indeterminacy”, to denote structure for which they have no understanding. The “indeterminacy” is intrinsic to the incomplete theory, not to reality itself. The infinite regress of structure or patterned causality is why substance must be continuous and thus scale-independent, otherwise it is an infinite regress of substance which would ultimately lead to the negation of any substance out of which to form anything. Thus, in the absence of continuous substance, nothing could exist. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
How can anything be unstructured? More to the point, how can structure arise out of non-structure? Something without structure is something that is not definitely one way or another. It is not reducible. It is holistic and it is free-formed. I believe that consciousness has an unstructured aspect to it. I believe our consciousness sensations are fundamentally irreducible. Yet we have the capacity to generate nearly an endless array of conceptual structures. Communication, analysis and problem solving are structure-creating processes. In my opinion, these are examples of structure arising out of non-structure. I have no doubt that you believe consciousness to be structured, and therefore any conceptual structure we come up should be considered a derivation of the greater structure of our mind. To believe this, however, you would have to believe it is possible to represent the logical structure for the color "red" perfectly using a black and white laser printer. If you can formulate an answer to this question, then you have solved the greatest metaphysical puzzle known to man. We never can and we never will--at least not in a scientific sense. The implication of something not being structured is that it cannot be expressed with language. No formula would ever capture it. Therefore, attempting to formulate how structure arises from non-structure in a textbook that everyone can understand is impossible. Accurate representation of something using language and logic requires that something to be structured. Modern physics has no clue how to understand this. They merely take it as a given and accept to the resultant paradox. I don’t recognize paradox as an answer to anything, however, except the question of whether the theory is correct or not. How do you explain non-locality and particle-wave duality? Would you suggest that it is in fact possible to measure a particle’s momentum and position at the same instant? Thus, in the absence of continuous substance, nothing could exist. This is based on your premise that EVERYTHING must be logically structured. If you drop that premise, your conclusion goes away. The infinite regress of structure or patterned causality is why substance must be continuous and thus scale-independent Godel’s theorem’s give us interesting insight into logical structures. They state the axioms of a system cannot support, or prove their own consistency. In a sense, there is no logical reason for a set of axioms to exist out of necessity. In a finite, discrete system, one could add a new axiom to necessitate the others. However, you are now left with an unnecessary axiom supporting the whole system. To over come this problem, you seem to propose an infinite number of axioms. To me, this does not quench the problem. I still find there to be a dilemma stemming from the spirit of Godel’s theorem. If we live in a reality that is grounded in absolute logic, what logically necessitates its existence? Why do we live in this reality, and not some other? Your point of view also puts a real damper on scientific progress. In attempting to understand the structure of an "ultimate reality", we are always fated to know exactly 0% of it. Our understanding of science will always be finite, and any finite number divided by infinity is 0. This would mean any progress we have is an illusion. I'm not sure you really understand the logical implicatins of asserting infinite structures; there is a meaningful philosophical difference as compared to simply implying there are a huge, yet finite, number of structures. Not to mention the entire theory should be considered unscientific to begin with because there is no way to validate it. It suffers from the same fate as the complexity speculation that I started this thread with. No matter how far scientific knowledge progresses, your idea of infinite regression will always stand as unverified speculation. How does this get us closer to a scientific understanding of metaphysics? I should also point out that infinite quantities are entirely inconceivable. I find it interesting that "unstructured" entities defy your intuition, but you are willing to accept infinite entities. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Something without structure is something that is not definitely one way or another. It is not reducible. It is holistic and it is free-formed. Is the concept of a continuum somehow not holistic? Perhaps we have different definitions of structure. My definition does not prohibit free-forms nor is it contradictory to holism. It is merely a descriptor for causality. The root-level causality is a free-formed, holistic, continuous fluid. Substance is ultimately indivisible because it is continuous, and in this sense it is absolutely irreducible. I believe that consciousness has an unstructured aspect to it. I believe our consciousness sensations are fundamentally irreducible. Yet we have the capacity to generate nearly an endless array of conceptual structures. Communication, analysis and problem solving are structure-creating processes. In my opinion, these are examples of structure arising out of non-structure. Is the brain not composed of a vast hierarchy of structure? Are you assuming a non-structured spirit of some kind that somehow interacts with this structure…a ghost in the machine? Or do you suppose that the ‘non-structure’ is at the subquantum level as in ‘quantum indeterminacy’? Just HOW does this ‘non-structure’ or ‘indeterminacy’ create structure? Can you comprehend how it does what it does to produce structure? If not then isn’t it incomprehensible? I have no doubt that you believe consciousness to be structured, and therefore any conceptual structure we come up should be considered a derivation of the greater structure of our mind. To believe this, however, you would have to believe it is possible to represent the logical structure for the color "red" perfectly using a black and white laser printer. I never said that everything had a structure that could be expressed absolutely in the abstract, linear realm of logic. Logic has its obvious limits. subtillioN: If you can formulate an answer to this question, then you have solved the greatest metaphysical puzzle known to man.
We never can because the mystery is ill-posed. It amounts to a creation ex nihilo. The implication of something not being structured is that it cannot be expressed with language. No formula would ever capture it. I agree that language has its limits, but it is linear, discrete and finite. I also agree that the brain is non-algorithmic. I simply think that an algorithm, being a serial language phenomenon, is far too simplistic to emulate the brain. Therefore, attempting to formulate how structure arises from non-structure in a textbook that everyone can understand is impossible. So you have faith in a non-scientific credo which no human being (including you) can understand. How do you explain non-locality and particle-wave duality? This gets into the heart of the unified physics model which I can go into later if you wish. Suffice it to say here that there ARE unified realistic models which explain the phenomena MUCH more holistically. The standard model has these problems because the theory has been prematurely fossilized before reaching the root level causality. Would you suggest that it is in fact possible to measure a particle’s momentum and position at the same instant? A ‘particle’ does not have a point-like position. It is a density fluctuation in the basic substance. Its absolute, physical structure is a gradient and therefore it actually is spread out as quite accurately mapped by the probability functions. Reality is not indeterminate. It is only the zero-point-position assumption that is faulty and non-existent. This is based on your premise that EVERYTHING must be logically structured. If you drop that premise, your conclusion goes away. Did you notice that you slipped the word ‘logic’ in there? Logic is a mere approximation of causality and it is linear and discrete. These properties are the inverse of reality. Reality is not ‘logically structured’, it is a causally, fluid-dynamically, holistically structured continuum. Structure does not rule out holism. It is dis-continuity that does this. Godel’s theorem’s give us interesting insight into logical structures. They state the axioms of a system cannot support, or prove their own consistency. In a sense, there is no logical reason for a set of axioms to exist out of necessity. In a finite, discrete system, one could add a new axiom to necessitate the others. However, you are now left with an unnecessary axiom supporting the whole system. To over come this problem, you seem to propose an infinite number of axioms. Ok then, list the “infinite number of axioms” for me. =) I proposed only one: “Reality is a structured continuum”. To me, this does not quench the problem. I still find there to be a dilemma stemming from the spirit of Godel’s theorem. If we live in a reality that is grounded in absolute logic, what logically necessitates its existence? Why do we live in this reality, and not some other? Reality is not grounded in logic. It is grounded in a continuous, omni-local, omni-directional and causal substance, which is infinitely more complex than logic. Gödel’s theorem simply does not apply to physical reality. It merely points out the necessary limits on the mathematical precision of any logic system. This doesn’t mean that we can know absolutely nothing, just that we are finite beings trying to quantify the infinite and continuous. As finite beings we necessarily have our limits. Your point of view also puts a real damper on scientific progress. In attempting to understand the structure of an "ultimate reality", we are always fated to know exactly 0% of it. You have completely misunderstood my point of view, but then I haven’t really explained it all to you. What I have shown you is actually the metaphysical foundation of a holistic unified field theory which deletes the ‘fundamental’ mysteries, incompatibilities, paradoxes and dualities: not at all what you are claiming based on your ignorance. Our understanding of science will always be finite, and any finite number divided by infinity is 0. Wrong. Infinity is not a number, it is beyond number, (i.e. limitless), and therefore you can’t divide by it. If reality is in some sense infinite, and we understand this, does it diminish our knowledge or increase it? We are in contact with reality. Therefore we can understand reality within our finite limits. I don’t care what your “math” says. It is just plain wrong. This would mean any progress we have is an illusion. I'm not sure you really understand the logical implicatins of asserting infinite structures; What structure did I assert was infinite? Structure belongs to the realm of pattern. Therefore all structures are necessarily finite. Substance is not *a* structure. It is the continuous field out of which all structure is made. There is a big difference. Not to mention the entire theory should be considered unscientific to begin with because there is no way to validate it. It suffers from the same fate as the complexity speculation that I started this thread with. If it suffers the same fate as all scientific theory then how does this make it non-scientific? No theory can be proven true, period, remember? I have only given you the metaphysical underpinnings and not the scientific theory which is quite a complex and detailed unified field theory. So, yes, what I have given you is not physics and it is not scientific, it is metaphysics. No matter how far scientific knowledge progresses, your idea of infinite regression will always stand as unverified speculation. Whether we assume an infinite regression of structure or an end to this regression, either way it is unverifiable whether the deeper, observationally impenetrable level has structure or not. I thought you understood this. Note that I said that it is possible that such a regression exists. I didn’t say that it exists necessarily, only that I can’t rule it out as an impossibility. Since the deeper we look the more structure we find then it makes no sense to assume arbitrarily that this process must necessarily come to an end. The only way to conceptually deal with such a regression is to postulate a continuum. I am also saying that postulating a continuum is the key to the unification of physics, but then you wouldn’t know anything about that. Isn’t unification an inherently holistic process? How does this get us closer to a scientific understanding of metaphysics? Is that *your* goal? My goal is a metaphysical (i.e. qualitative) understanding of physical reality. Metaphysics is necessarily beyond physics, hence the name. It is at the root, axiomatic level beyond direct observation. I should also point out that infinite quantities are entirely inconceivable. How difficult is it for you to understand space as extending without limits? I think it is quite easy, just don’t put any limits in your mind as you visualize space, and voila! Infinite space! You claim that infinity is inconceivable, but do you therefore claim that a causeless effect *is* conceivable? It is *state-able*, I will grant you that, but it is entirely non-visualizable and thus non-understandable and inconceivable. If conceivability were the criterion for science, then we wouldn’t be here in this mess, now would we. We wouldn’t have the inconceivable “wave-particle duality”, indeterminacy or acausality. We would have no paradoxes or incompatible compartments of physics. We would have a holistic and unified physics, which is exactly what Sorce Theory is. Everything about physical reality is rendered conceivable and visualizable. bye bye ubiquitous mystery! Infinity is not a quantity. Quantities are limits: infinity is the absence thereof. Infinity, like %99.9999999999… of the phenomena that we are aware of, simply cannot fit into our puny little minds. Does this mean that the only thing that does exist is our finite abstractions of them? Just because we can’t replicate it within our minds doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I find it interesting that "unstructured" entities defy your intuition, but you are willing to accept infinite entities. It doesn’t defy *my* intuition. It defies *human* intuition. You just haven’t tried to imagine the causality behind it and you probably have dispensed with causality altogether. Perhaps that is why you are willing to entertain the notion of structureless structure? P.S. I think your notion of “structure arising from non-structure” is merely the idea of emergent phenomena with a simple denial that the substrate has any structure. It *looks* like it arises from non-structure from a particular vantage point, but every structure that science understands arises out of a deeper level structure which can often-times be very difficult to see from the level of the emergent phenomenon. Why should the brain be any different? You have simply fuzzed out the substructure because you think it makes the concept holistic and free-formed. It doesn’t. Non-structure has no form. It is nothingness itself. How can nothingness or non-structure link things together and provide holism? The only thing that can do that is a causal continuum. Perhaps you are unaware that causality is a form of structure? Do you claim that an effect can arise without a preceding cause? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It does seem I misread your perspective in many respects. I will read www.anpheon.org to get an understanding of it rather than have you reiterate it here. From what you have stated so far, it almost seems like a revival of the 19th century idea of the ether.
Perhaps we have different definitions of structure. I think so. Semantics can be such a bugger. To me, structure is necessarily reductionistic and atomic. In a sense, it means something is built from smaller pieces in a specific configuration. I guess when in doubt, consult the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=structure I never said that everything had a structure that could be expressed absolutely in the abstract, linear realm of logic. Logic has its obvious limits ... (snip) ... Did you notice that you slipped the word ‘logic’ in there? I presumed that you had intentions of grounding reality in logic by your statement "I don’t recognize paradox as an answer to anything". Paradox is a term out of the philosophy of logic. Logic is simply a means to reason. Many eastern philosophies accept paradox as a natural part of reality. Much of western civilization, like yourself, is determined to ground everything in sound reason. I assume that your worldview suggests that if you let go of a rock, that rock will fall to the ground out of logical necessity. Yes? I would guess that your perception of causality, although operating in a continuous medium, follows precise and necessary rules, or laws. These laws of physics determine the exact outcome of all phenomena. There are several points I am unclear on, however. Are there a finite set of physical laws? Or is it in infinite set? If it is a finite set, why would the continuous nature of space-time impact our ability to formulate them? If we cannot formulate the laws of physics, in what way are our formulas inadequate? If it is only a lack of precision, then does this truly escape the implications of Gödel? Why do these physical laws necessarily exist, and not some other set? Wrong. Infinity is not a number, it is beyond number, (i.e. limitless), and therefore you can’t divide by it. I agree that infinity is not a number, but it is a mathematical concept. I’m not sure if it even relevant at this point, but just out of curiosity, would you consider zero, the absence of a quantity, to be a number? If it suffers the same fate as all scientific theory then how does this make it non-scientific? No theory can be proven true, period, remember? Sorry, I should have called you on this one earlier. There is a difference between validating a theory and proving it to be true. In my initial post, using the word "true" was a bad choice. Even still, I maintain my original point. A theory needs to have empirical evidence to support it to be considered scientific. Nobody would give the Theory of Relativity much thought if it was never empirically verified. Weak-emergence is not a scientific theory, and it never can be. As far as your continuum theory, I will retract my judgment that it is unscientific until I read more about it. Is that *your* goal? My goal is a metaphysical (i.e. qualitative) understanding of physical reality. Metaphysics is necessarily beyond physics, hence the name. It is at the root, axiomatic level beyond direct observation. No it is not my goal. And I agree with your assertion. Infinity is not a quantity. Quantities are limits: infinity is the absence thereof. Good point. When I say "infinite quantities", I simply mean "infinity". P.S. I think your notion of "structure arising from non-structure" is merely the idea of emergent phenomena ... (snip) ... Do you claim that an effect can arise without a preceding cause? It is quite apparent that I have not adequately expressed my view as well. I will attempt to summarize it in the post regarding Solipsism. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
My reply to this post is contained in the beginning of the subthread "Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2". |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
That would be solipsism because the subjective/objective divide is the interface of the individual. I suppose I would consider myself a solipsist from the perspective of considering what can and cannot be logically proven. As you stated in your initial response, no theory can be proven true; yet I am willing to accept my own existence as a necessary truth. This is not to say that we cannot understand reality. By stating that "the subjective/objective divide is the interface of the individual", I assume that you are saying our only means of knowledge is through our physical senses. I disagree with that assumption. I believe that wisdom is the measure of our understanding of an ultimate reality, and it requires another interface besides the physical one. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
As you stated in your initial response, no theory can be proven true; yet I am willing to accept my own existence as a necessary truth. Yeah, but can you prove it to me? By stating that "the subjective/objective divide is the interface of the individual", I assume that you are saying our only means of knowledge is through our physical senses. Are you claiming that we have non-physical senses? In what way is this different from dualism, or is it? I disagree with that assumption. I believe that wisdom is the measure of our understanding of an ultimate reality, and it requires another interface besides the physical one. Wisdom is formed from memory gained by contact with external reality. What “interface besides the physical one” are you claiming exists? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
SubtillioN to leodegan:
Yeah, but can you prove it to me? He does not have to prove it to you, since you can prove it to yourself. Those facts are not "objective", but facts nevertheless. They can be verified "intersubjectively". Our concepts of "objective reality" do not hold in face of facts of consciousness. Blue |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
He does not have to prove it to you, since you can prove it to yourself. I can't prove it to myself that he exists. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I can't prove it to myself that he exists. You can prove to yourself that you exist and then talk to him about your common insight. Or do you have doubts about the existence of yourself, because you can't prove it to him? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You can prove to yourself that you exist and then talk to him about your common insight. Of course, but we were talking about absolute scientific verifiability and the fact that is impossible to absolutely verify any theory. Do you think that talking about a common insight is an absolute proof that the other person exists? If science is defined as a cultural, sociological phenomenon, would you suppose that this 'cogito ergo sum' self-verifiability constitutes a scientific proof? Or do you have doubts about the existence of yourself, because you can't prove it to him? That's a bit sily. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Do you think that talking about a common insight is an absolute proof that the other person exists? It is proof enough for me, but then I don't require absolute proof. I know that theory and knowledge are in the realm of representation and are therefore finite, relative and non-absolute. Any appeal to the non-absoluteness of any theory to show that it must be incorrect, will get you nowhere with anyone aware of this fact. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
That's a bit sily. Not really, it is about acknowleding conscious experience as a source of valid "input" about facts (for example the fact that we consciously see colors.) Any appeal to the non-absoluteness of any theory to show that it must be incorrect, will get you nowhere with anyone aware of this fact. I do not think anyone is making such an appeal. Rather, the appeal is that the limitations of theories and concepts would mean that there is something "more" to reality than these concepts and theories suggest. That the principles according to which reality "works" must be different than we think they are not only in terms of "precision". Goedels theorem points to just one such limitation. My own arguments do not rely on Goedels theorem, but I find it interesting and would consider it a "supporting" argument. However, the inability of mathematical concepts to address "concsiously-seeing-colors" is a limitation of a very different nature. In the context of Spinoza philosophy, the limitation of the concept of causality is yet another kind of limitation, as it ends with the existence of the basic substance, meaning that causality is a relative concept, not absolute. Of course any limitation points to relativeness rather than absoluteness. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Not really, it is about acknowleding conscious experience as a source of valid "input" about facts (for example the fact that we consciously see colors.) Conscious experience is ultimately the *only* source of knowledge isn’t it? It is the foundation of knowledge. subtillioN: Any appeal to the non-absoluteness of any theory to show that it must be incorrect, will get you nowhere with anyone aware of this fact.
I agree with you that physical reality is different than Physics thinks it is and not only in terms of "precision”. I believe, however, that we *can* have a physics that can understand reality and one whose limits will only be limits of precision and not limits of kind. In the context of Spinoza philosophy, the limitation of the concept of causality is yet another kind of limitation, as it ends with the existence of the basic substance, meaning that causality is a relative concept, not absolute. It is the concept of causality that is limited and relative, not the thing that it references. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Yeah, but can you prove it to me? Nope. And for that reason, I do not believe it to be a scientific truth. It is dependent on subjective information, not objective information. But I must consider it a truth nonetheless. I do not limit my sense of what is real to objective science. I am compelled to factor my subjective experience as well. Are you claiming that we have non-physical senses? In what way is this different from dualism, or is it? My take on the mind-body duality is that it is a reflection of the space-time duality. The body is in the domain of space as the mind is in the domain of time. They are bound to each other, but intuitively, very different. I suppose my beliefs come from a more traditional intuition. I believe in a tensed time. The only thing that truly exists is the current moment. The future is not real, and it is not set until it happens. Along these lines, I see space to be the realm of structure. There are multiple dimensions of space and they have curvature. If we look at a conceptual snapshot of space, all matter and energy is atomic and exact. Our bodies, as well, are reducible to specific structures: organism -> organs -> cells -> molecules -> atoms. On the other hand, I see time to be the realm of holism and non-structure. There are not multiple dimensions of time--there is only time. Furthermore, time is indeterminate. Our mind, or consciousness, is likewise irreducible and uncertain (freewill). In addition, I believe time is responsible for generating space. In a sense, this is how I believe structure emerges from non-structure. This follows the concept that our consciousness is the agent that collapses the quantum wave. Time acts as the furnace from which the objective, physical world is forged. If I write a poem, that poem represents a structure that has emerged from this forge, just as the very laws of physics are forged. [block]Wisdom is formed from memory gained by contact with external reality. What "interface besides the physical one" are you claiming exists?[/block] The physical senses provide us with a referential knowledge of the world. The other interface I am referring to is the one that gives us our awareness, or understanding of the world. From the physical senses we can only perceive symbols, or syntax. It is the internal interface that we derive semantics. And in a platonic sense, this internal interface perceives a common, absolute truth. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Breaking through our semantic idiosyncrasies, it seems we have more in common than we initially realized.
From what you have stated so far, it almost seems like a revival of the 19th century idea of the ether. The 19th century ether was a solid, incompressible, isometric matrix through which, and relative to, all objects somehow moved. This simplistic and abstract notion of ‘ether’ was successfully discredited by the Michelson-Morely experiment. There were other experiments, by Fizzeau for example, which showed the existence of a more dynamic and moveable ether, however, and Einstein himself, later said that ‘curved-space’ was absolutely incomprehensible without some type of ether to physically enact this metrical curvature. Einstein intuited the shift to the dynamic ether as seen in Sorce Theory. The ‘ether’ in Sorce Theory is a fluid-dynamic, compressible, continuous, material medium out of which all objects are formed. This is more of a return to the Ionian, pre-atomic, ideas of Anaxagoras or Thales, though it is still quite different. See the Sorce Theory thread for more info. I think so. Semantics can be such a bugger. To me, structure is necessarily reductionistic and atomic. In a sense, it means something is built from smaller pieces in a specific configuration. I too think that the reductionist-atomic paradigm is faulty, but I also think that this paradigm is actually the cause of the paradox of modern physics. The fluid-dynamic continuum resolves this paradox. I presumed that you had intentions of grounding reality in logic by your statement "I don’t recognize paradox as an answer to anything". Paradox is a term out of the philosophy of logic. Logic is simply a means to reason. Many eastern philosophies accept paradox as a natural part of reality. Much of western civilization, like yourself, is determined to ground everything in sound reason. Paradox is anti-holistic. It forms dualities, incompatibilities and non-understanding. It is merely a consequence of faulty logic. I firmly believe that the universe *is* comprehensible by the mind of man and Sorce Theory is a proof of concept and a means to that end. I assume that your worldview suggests that if you let go of a rock, that rock will fall to the ground out of logical necessity. Yes? Assuming that the rock is released in a substantial gravitational gradient then the rock will ‘fall’ out of *causal* necessity. Logic has nothing to do with it. I would guess that your perception of causality, although operating in a continuous medium, follows precise and necessary rules, or laws. These laws of physics determine the exact outcome of all phenomena. The ‘Laws’ possess inherent nonlinearities which are observed in such phenomena as the ‘mass-defect’, and entropy etc. They are exact in their non-linear functioning, but highly unpredictable in the absolute sense. There are several points I am unclear on, however. Are there a finite set of physical laws? The set of ‘laws’ is finite because the mind is a finite system and laws are an invention of the mind to codify the actions of physical reality. If it is a finite set, why would the continuous nature of space-time impact our ability to formulate them? Because the “continuous nature of space-time” is a reality and our laws are attempting to codify that reality. If we cannot formulate the laws of physics, in what way are our formulas inadequate? We *can* formulate laws that describe physical reality with a great deal of accuracy. The inadequacies are merely a matter of mathematical precision. If it is only a lack of precision, then does this truly escape the implications of Gödel? Gödel’s Theorem is only applicable to linear and discrete logic systems, e.g. mathematics. It has no applications to the understanding of physics, but it is enormously useful to illustrate the crucial distinction between logic and reality. Why do these physical laws necessarily exist, and not some other set? Because that is the natural way for the mind of man to understand the workings of nature. To ask why nature has its specific ways of root-level functioning rather than some other ways, is to assume that it even makes sense to ask the question. I feel that it is only our limited understanding of causality that brings us to wonder whether an alternative is even possible. subtillioN: Infinity is not a number, it is beyond number, (i.e. limitless), and therefore you can’t divide by it.
Then you have just grasped the core error in Zeno’s paradox. I’m not sure if it even relevant at this point, but just out of curiosity, would you consider zero, the absence of a quantity, to be a number? As a negation of number ‘zero’ is a functional part of the set of numbers, but it does possess its idiosyncratic properties apart from the other numbers. The difference between infinity and zero is that zero can function as a number whereas infinity cannot. Sorry, I should have called you on this one earlier. There is a difference between validating a theory and proving it to be true. In my initial post, using the word "true" was a bad choice. So ‘validating’ is a relative (i.e. non-absolute) form of proof? Makes sense to me. Even still, I maintain my original point. A theory needs to have empirical evidence to support it to be considered scientific. Emphatically agreed! Science should be grounded only in such observable evidence. The interesting thing is that metaphysics can reach the core level with minimal data and based almost entirely on rigorous logic. This is what happened with Spinoza’s ‘geometrical proof’ for an infinite, continuous and monistic substance. He intuited the Unified Field long before Science who has yet to find it. Nobody would give the Theory of Relativity much thought if it was never empirically verified. The ‘verifications’ of Relativity Theory are circumstantial and actually quite vague and problematic. I can go into detail at a later point if you wish. Weak-emergence is not a scientific theory, and it never can be. What happens if I open your brain and begin stimulating individual neurons? You will begin experiencing odd sensations and recalling long forgotten memories. Is this not evidence that the functions of a single neuron can emergently impact the meta-scale functioning of the conscious mind? Nope. And for that reason, I do not believe it to be a scientific truth. It is dependent on subjective information, not objective information. But I must consider it a truth nonetheless. Yes, it is perhaps the only truth that does not need verification. I do not limit my sense of what is real to objective science. I am compelled to factor my subjective experience as well. Your subjective experience is part of objective science, in the sense that it can be probed and explained by it. There is no real subjective/objective divide. It is merely an illusion of perspective. Holism demands this conclusion. My take on the mind-body duality is that it is a reflection of the space-time duality. The body is in the domain of space as the mind is in the domain of time. They are bound to each other, but intuitively, very different. I believe the “space/time duality” to be merely a matter of perspective as well. Holism demands that ALL dualities are seen as mere illusions from an alternate perspective. My claim is that the perspective is scale independent. The only thing that truly exists is the current moment. The future is not real, and it is not set until it happens. I completely agree with this statement but would add that the ‘current moment’ is not a quantifiable instant. It is a continuous flux, not a discreet, reducible ‘moment’. It is anatomic rather than atomic. Along these lines, I see space to be the realm of structure. There are multiple dimensions of space and they have curvature. ‘Space’ and ‘Time’ are abstractions of matter in motion. As such they cannot physically be ‘curved’. It is the density gradients of raw matter that are mapped out imprecisely and abstractly by the notion of ‘curved space’. If we look at a conceptual snapshot of space, all matter and energy is atomic and exact. Our bodies, as well, are reducible to specific structures: organism -> organs -> cells -> molecules -> atoms.
Though I would agree on an abstract level, I would argue against the space/time duality and assert that both space and time, or more precisely, matter and motion, are continuous and therefore absolutely irreducible to discrete, atomic components. See Ilya Prigogine for similar ideas illustrating the “arrow of time”. In addition, I believe time is responsible for generating space. Similarly, I believe that matter and motion are entirely inseparable. There is no such thing as ‘motionless matter’, and it is the motion of raw fluid-dynamic matter that actually ‘generates’ atomic matter. In a sense, this is how I believe structure emerges from non-structure. Based on your more ‘solid’ definition of ‘structure’ I completely agree with you. This follows the concept that our consciousness is the agent that collapses the quantum wave. The wave-function is a mathematical fiction: as such its collapse is merely a change in the state of mind of the observer. That is why there can never be any real transfer of information through this so-called ‘quantum entanglement’. Time acts as the furnace from which the objective, physical world is forged. If I write a poem, that poem represents a structure that has emerged from this forge, just as the very laws of physics are forged. I agree on an abstract level, but would caution against the dualistic image of space vs. time. When you separate the two aspects their individual meaning vanishes. They are entirely irreducible, as demanded by holism. =) The physical senses provide us with a referential knowledge of the world. The other interface I am referring to is the one that gives us our awareness, or understanding of the world. From the physical senses we can only perceive symbols, or syntax. It is the internal interface that we derive semantics. And in a platonic sense, this internal interface perceives a common, absolute truth. I would argue that the ‘interface’ is, nevertheless, still ‘physical’, though my definition of ‘physical’ is quite different from the common reductionist view. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Assuming that the rock is released in a substantial gravitational gradient then the rock will ‘fall’ out of *causal* necessity. Logic has nothing to do with it. Necessity is another term from the philosophy of logic and critical thinking. You are trying to assert a theory that is rational, yet you are dancing around the issue in order to avoid calling it logical. If an event occurs out of necessity, you are implying that your model of it must be logical. Gödel’s Theorem is only applicable to linear and discrete logic systems, e.g. mathematics. It has no applications to the understanding of physics, but it is enormously useful to illustrate the crucial distinction between logic and reality. Gödel’s Theorem was proven using arithmetic, but it applies to all sufficiently rich formal systems. For example, you can derive the Halting Theorem from it. You say that conceptual inconsistencies and paradoxes in a formal system we have devised to model reality are bad and should be avoided. Yet inconsistencies or paradoxes implied by Gödel’s theorem somehow do not apply. You say that Gödel’s theorems do not apply to reality itself. Somehow, other paradoxes, such as duality, ARE relevant. If you are trying to come up with a rational formal system to represent reality, shouldn’t you strive to have one that is free from all inconsistencies and paradoxes? The point of this is that you reject a model that includes the concept of particle-wave duality, because it does not make sense to have an irrational formal system represent one that is grounded in causal necessity. You dismiss Gödel because you assume the logical breach is due to the finite nature of our model. Why can we not dismiss other paradoxes based on the finite nature of our model? What happens if I open your brain and begin stimulating individual neurons? You will begin experiencing odd sensations and recalling long forgotten memories. Is this not evidence that the functions of a single neuron can emergently impact the meta-scale functioning of the conscious mind? Dropping me into a vat of hot water would have a major impact on my conscious experience as well. If you inject chemicals into my brain, or poke at my neurons, you will also alter my conscious experience; the only difference is that it is a little closer to home. It still does not tell us about the ontology of consciousness, only that the activity of our neurons is somehow associated with consciousness. If we have a pattern of information that supposedly represents the color red, the only way we could verify that the pattern is accurate is by manipulating the data to the point where we can present a view that we can say, "oh yeah, that IS how red looks to me!" Weak-emergence theory relates subjective experience to objective data. Unless we can verify that the objective data is representative of the subjective experience, it cannot be validated. Yet weak-emergence has ruled out that possibility from ever occurring, thus it is doomed to always be a non-scientific speculation. Your subjective experience is part of objective science, in the sense that it can be probed and explained by it. There is no real subjective/objective divide. It is merely an illusion of perspective. Holism demands this conclusion. I disagree that holism demands that subjective experience is part of objective science. In a sense, I believe the objective, physical world is the byproduct of the underlying holistic substance. Our consciousness is part of the furnace and our physical senses are the interface to that which is forged. Falling back to a Matrix analogy, suppose the matrix represents the physical world. Those in the matrix cannot use objective data to understand what is outside of the code. Yet, there is an underlying "root-level" reality that creates the structured world of the matrix and it is where the consciousnesses of those in the matrix reside. I agree on an abstract level, but would caution against the dualistic image of space vs. time. When you separate the two aspects their individual meaning vanishes. They are entirely irreducible, as demanded by holism. =) Time and space are different. They are different according to subjective experience and they are different according to objective representation. I can maintain a monistic view of reality, however, by asserting one emerges from the other. They are different layers within a single unfolding reality. I would argue that the ‘interface’ is, nevertheless, still ‘physical’, though my definition of ‘physical’ is quite different from the common reductionist view. I assume by physical, you mean it is eligible for direct objective observation. As I described earlier, I do not think we can understand the furnace by looking at its byproduct. I should also mention another point I believe we may disagree on. :-) I believe our conceptual understanding of the world is necessarily paradoxical, particularly from an ethics standpoint. This idea can be seen in the sense that we should never live by extremes, but rather find a balance in all aspects of life. This is because even though the "root-level" of our nature is absolute, it is not rational, and we should learn to appreciate the paradoxical interpretations of it. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Gödel’s theorem:
Necessity is another term from the philosophy of logic and critical thinking. You are trying to assert a theory that is rational, yet you are dancing around the issue in order to avoid calling it logical. If an event occurs out of necessity, you are implying that your model of it must be logical. Gödel’s Theorem was proven using arithmetic, but it applies to all sufficiently rich formal systems. For example, you can derive the Halting Theorem from it. I didn’t say that Sorce Theory is illogical, but only that reality is not based on a closed system of formal logic. That is why Gödel’s theorem doesn’t apply to reality or any relatively accurate and open description thereof. Like any useful scientific theory, Sorce Theory is logical and rational, in that it makes sense and is entirely understandable, but it is not a closed, formal logic system. It is a system whose micro-macro boundaries are necessarily open. Sorce Theory is a visual description of the modes of action of all of physical reality within the realm of what we call ‘physics’. I really don’t see how Gödel’s theorem applies. The Halting Theorem applies to closed formal logic systems such as a binary computer program. I would love to see how Gödel’s theorem applies to an open descriptive paradigm such as Sorce Theory or biology. You say that conceptual inconsistencies and paradoxes in a formal system we have devised to model reality are bad and should be avoided. Yet inconsistencies or paradoxes implied by Gödel’s theorem somehow do not apply. Gödel’s theorem is an incompleteness theorem. Though I don’t believe it applies to open, descriptive systems, I am already aware that ALL theories are inherently incomplete so I am not particularly worried about Gödel’s theorem wrt Sorce Theory. Again, if you believe it applies to Sorce Theory, or a comparable theory such as biology, then please show me exactly how it applies, otherwise it is simply conjecture and merely an attempt to find an Achilles heel in the system which you don’t as of yet understand. If it applies to Sorce Theory, then it applies to any open description of nature including your dualistic-holism. I don’t think it applies, however, and I would love to see if you can make some concrete connections. You say that Gödel’s theorems do not apply to reality itself. Somehow, other paradoxes, such as duality, ARE relevant. If you are trying to come up with a rational formal system to represent reality, shouldn’t you strive to have one that is free from all inconsistencies and paradoxes? There must be a confusion here. I don’t believe reality is ultimately dualistic or paradoxical whatsoever. It is only the mind that must simplify and categorize the world thus and the mind is therefore prone to the simple categorical errors that you mention. The point of this is that you reject a model that includes the concept of particle-wave duality, because it does not make sense to have an irrational formal system represent one that is grounded in causal necessity. When there is an alternative model that doesn’t require paradoxes, dualities, incompatibilities and an overall negation of human understanding: one that can view physical reality as a single inter-functioning whole, then why stick with one that DOES contain paradoxes and is NOT capable of viewing the world as a unified set of inter-functioning and understandable concepts? To me, the choice is obvious. You may have developed a taste for your programmed ignorance, however, but such is the way of the mind to justify its odious condition. You dismiss Gödel because you assume the logical breach is due to the finite nature of our model. Why can we not dismiss other paradoxes based on the finite nature of our model? We can dismiss ALL paradoxes. I still don’t get how this applies to my argument. What paradoxes or dualities do you think I am unwilling to dismiss? Dropping me into a vat of hot water would have a major impact on my conscious experience as well. If you inject chemicals into my brain, or poke at my neurons, you will also alter my conscious experience; the only difference is that it is a little closer to home. It still does not tell us about the ontology of consciousness, only that the activity of our neurons is somehow associated with consciousness. It tells us directly that changes induced at the microscopic level of neurons can emerge into the macro realm of consciousness. To me, and most neuroscientists, it is direct evidence that in some sense consciousness is observably emergent from the actions of individual, interconnected neurons. If we have a pattern of information that supposedly represents the color red, the only way we could verify that the pattern is accurate is by manipulating the data to the point where we can present a view that we can say, "oh yeah, that IS how red looks to me!" Weak-emergence theory relates subjective experience to objective data. Unless we can verify that the objective data is representative of the subjective experience, it cannot be validated. Yet weak-emergence has ruled out that possibility from ever occurring, thus it is doomed to always be a non-scientific speculation. The brain sciences are vastly complicated and it will take a good while before we have the technology to make such a verification possible. You must admit that you cannot verify that such a verification is impossible, right? =) I disagree that holism demands that subjective experience is part of objective science. I meant that holism demands that all dualisms are not absolute. They cannot exist at the root level, otherwise there can be no unified model and thus no holism. Do you claim then, that “mind and matter” are two fundamentally incompatible properties of the world? If they are not incompatible then they are unified at some level by a single causal substrate and therefore the limits of observation of the causal connections are merely limits in practice and not in principal. In a sense, I believe the objective, physical world is the byproduct of the underlying holistic substance. Our consciousness is part of the furnace and our physical senses are the interface to that which is forged. It seems that we loosely agree on this, though to me it is quite an abstract way of putting it. Perhaps the difference is just where on the hierarchy the functional interdependencies lie? Time and space are different. They are different according to subjective experience and they are different according to objective representation. Yes they are distinguishable and categorizable by the human mind, but this doesn’t mean that they are two separate things. It only means that we can form two separate categories to simplify and group our represented properties of the world, e.g. extension and duration. When you imagine action without anything to actually *do* the acting, then the meaning of action is negated. Action is simply impossible without some substance or object to do the acting. That is how time and space are inseparable. I can maintain a monistic view of reality, however, by asserting one emerges from the other. They are different layers within a single unfolding reality. You can assert anything you want, but if you can’t imagine HOW it takes place then it is merely a baseless and blind assertion. I assume by physical, you mean it is eligible for direct objective observation. As I described earlier, I do not think we can understand the furnace by looking at its byproduct. The limits of observation are technical and not absolute. I believe our conceptual understanding of the world is necessarily paradoxical, particularly from an ethics standpoint. This idea can be seen in the sense that we should never live by extremes, but rather find a balance in all aspects of life. Yes the world is eternally out of equilibrium and that is a good thing otherwise we would not be here. This does not imply that it is paradoxical, however. Imbalance is simply not the same as paradox. This is because even though the "root-level" of our nature is absolute, it is not rational, and we should learn to appreciate the paradoxical interpretations of it. Go ahead and appreciate the errors of logic. I have moved past them to a unified, holistic model. From my vantage point outside the standard model, the paradoxes are quite plainly seen to precondition the ‘cultured’ human mind to the failure of understanding that is the hallmark of modern physics. I encounter this problem all the time when reading popular accounts of physics interpretations of the observational data or when discussing these things with people educated within the standard model. The preconceptions are quite difficult to overcome. I have seen the unified alternative model and have not devoted my life to being indoctrinated into the standard model so it is much easier for me to abandon the unnecessary and disabling paradoxes. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
hmmm- paradoxes are *by definition* non-existant [hehehe]- joking aside I think it is important to see "Dualities" [and Trinities/ Tetralities/ etc] and "Paradoxes" are HUMAN CREATED arbitrary inferred quantized tensors of Causality- dualities/paradoxes are not simply made-up however- they are inferred from observed reality- like in wave-mechanics the wave system can be expressed as the SUM-AND-DIFFERENCE of some initial waveforms- these initial waves DO NOT EXIST- nor CAN they exist- they are simply a way of acurately quantizing the properties of a wavesystem for more efficient analysis/computation-
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
what you miss I think- YES: the tensors of QM and relativity REALLY don't add up- I am well aware of this. The tensors are purely theoretical and the theories are fundamentally incompatible both mathematically and wrt human understanding. and the notion of making them add-up with M-theory is a desparate and hopeless exercize- Agreed, as I have said before, M-Theory is a desperate fantasy kludge to patch together, incorrect Relativity Theory and incomplete Quantum Theory. Sorce Theory is at the opposite side of the spectrum. It is an entirely descriptive and visual type of model similar in this respect to biology. It is not esoteric and abstract as is typical of modern physics. BUT I think you want to dismiss tensors that don't-add-up outright- Who said anything about tensors? I am talking about deleting conceptual paradoxes that make it impossible to gain an understanding of what is actually happening behind the mathematics. The tensors are merely tools for the quantification of nature. If they work then keep them, if they don't and they are incompatible then develop new ones. It is as simple and obvious as that. but LOOK! when you have a parqdox and things contradict/don't add-up- you can SEE JUST HOW MUCH they don't add up! often you can see an important principle that can lead you toward a framework or theory that WILL add-up- Exactly, such as the recognition that ALL waves require a compressible substrate, as in Sorce Theory. So there is merit in the entire scientific progress of mankind, but it is important to be able to adapt with the flux of history and not get stuck with the dying incorrect theories even though they are valuable and useful in the evolutionary process. so these paradoxes can sometimes provide a "measurement" of the difference between theory and observation- this is why mathematical paradoxes can be as illuminating as philisophical "profound-ironies"- they can reveal what some of what is needed to make things add-up- usually by uncovering a deeper structure and connectedness in Causality that was not obvious before excellent! |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Who said anything about tensors? I am talking about deleting conceptual paradoxes that make it impossible to gain an understanding of what is actually happening behind the mathematics. The tensors are merely tools for the quantification of nature. If they work then keep them, if they don't and they are incompatible then develop new ones. It is as simple and obvious as that.
ah-what I mean is- ok- let us assume for the moment that "Sorce Theory" actually does "add-up" and provide a complete formalized description of observed reality [I'm sure this won't be too much of a stretch for you Sub! ;)] now let us look at the incomplete and paradoxical juxtaposition of Relativity and QM- I am saying that if one looks at the paradoxical and inadedequate regions of these theories in context with the whole- that one MAY be able to glean and uncover various key concepts of the more accurate Sorce Theory- that is the contridictory holes can help define crucial areas of the Sorce Theory- the nature/structure/extent of the contradictions themselves can actually portray a mapping of fundementally important features of the better model- like in our hypothetical example: how the paradoxes of particle/wave behavior could imply that a more complete theory must express matter and space as gradients of density in a universal fluid substrate- so the "mistake" is not simply wrong- it is WRONG IN THE RIGHT WAY- because the "error" gives you clues about the right [or better] answer- |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
so the "mistake" is not simply wrong- it is WRONG IN THE RIGHT WAY- because the "error" gives you clues about the right I agree, because "correctness" is relative, but I don't think it is quite that simple. Despite how it may have happened historically, you don't need a paradoxical theory to deduce a correct theory from. All you need is the observational evidence and the ability to reprogram your own mind. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
you don't need a paradoxical theory to deduce a correct theory from. no- but it might be a lucky conceptual shortcut- |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
no- but it might be a lucky conceptual shortcut- Yes and it takes advantage of the parallel processing of the multitudes of physicists working on the problem so there is no use dismissing it as "useless". It is actually quite the opposite and it would have been impossible without the parrallel processing of the cultural focus. My point is merely that perhaps it could have happened differently. A much less detailed though still quite impressive route from a pure metaphysics stand-point was actually achieved by Spinoza in the late seventeenth century and even earlier by some of the ancient Ionian Philosophers. Actually Schrodingers original equations were dealing with pressure p which was later changed to the more abstract psi for probability. The probability clouds in the wave-funtions actually quite accurately describe the physical shape of the density cloud/gradient which is the electron. It was, (and still is) the point-particle model of the electron (and all particles) that got in the way of understanding and forced them to view it abstractly as a "probability cloud", which has no physically correlatable meaning whatsoever. Also, the relativistic "curved space" maps out the density gradient of a gravitational field fairly accurately even though the mechanism is entirely absent in GR. As I have said before the GR equations are lacking in precision and don't deal with the fine structure of the field which, among other things, accounts for Bode's Law of the regular spacing of the planetary orbits. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I have read the www.anapheon.com website and have a few comments.
Like any useful scientific theory, Sorce Theory is logical and rational, in that it makes sense and is entirely understandable, but it is not a closed, formal logic system. It is a system whose micro-macro boundaries are necessarily open. Sorce Theory is a visual description of the modes of action of all of physical reality within the realm of what we call ‘physics’. I really don’t see how Gödel’s theorem applies. Based on that statement, I would agree that Gödel does not apply. However, I had a different impression from your other descriptions. On your website, you claim: "The result is a completely causal explanation of ALL of physics with no internal contradictions." This becomes a problem when you assert that the theory describes the "root-cause" of everything. The implication of the theory is that every event occurs out of causal necessity and this causal necessity can be described by this formal system. In essence, there is a certain realism to the physical laws laid out in the theory. The laws are human constructs, but they relate directly to real world mechanics. And in the end, the theory becomes incomplete because there is nothing that necessitates the real world mechanics. The Gödel contradiction only occurs if you claim the Sorce Theory is a Theory of Everything. You seem perfectly content in not worrying about the necessity of the underlying mechanics. To me, however, it resembles a valid argument based on an illogical premise. The theory is attractive on the basis that it provides a *logical* explanation for all phenomena, but the attraction is lost because Gödel tells us there is no possible logical reason for the explanation. If it applies to Sorce Theory, then it applies to any open description of nature including your dualistic-holism. Dualistic-holism? Let me clarify that the dualism is illusionary (as you put it) and based on emergence within the system. The space-time duality I described is a conceptual tool. And yes, Gödel still applies. I do not claim to have a complete logical formulation of reality. There must be a confusion here. I don’t believe reality is ultimately dualistic or paradoxical whatsoever. Sorry for the confusion; I was not clear. My point was that you felt certain contradictions were worth considering as being bad--such as wave/particle duality--and I was under the impression that you felt there were some contradictions that could be ignored--such as Gödel/completeness. When there is an alternative model that doesn’t require paradoxes, dualities, incompatibilities and an overall negation of human understanding: one that can view physical reality as a single inter-functioning whole, then why stick with one that DOES contain paradoxes and is NOT capable of viewing the world as a unified set of inter-functioning and understandable concepts? To me, the choice is obvious. My whole point of the Gödel discussion is to illustrate that your model is necessarily not complete. If Sorce Theory accurately predicts physical events in a way they could not be predicted before, I would certainly see scientific value in it. As a metaphysical worldview, however, I do not believe you can claim it is superior because it rests on a logical foundation, because, well ... I do not believe it rests on a logical foundation. You may have developed a taste for your programmed ignorance, however, but such is the way of the mind to justify its odious condition. I have to admit that I am humored by this comment. For many years, I was fascinated by the prospect of a Theory of Everything; I thought it would be the ultimate achievement of the human mind to completely decode the Universe. My compulsion towards mysticism was actually an unexpected turn of events. It is simply where my intuition and logical conclusions have led me. You have clearly developed a strong emotional attachment to your theories. I applaud this from the perspective that it will feed your ambition. Just be careful it does not serve to close your mind. It tells us directly that changes induced at the microscopic level of neurons can emerge into the macro realm of consciousness. To me, and most neuroscientists, it is direct evidence that in some sense consciousness is observably emergent from the actions of individual, interconnected neurons. This assertion is based on a heavily functionalist point of view: if a functional model can be made for some physical system, then that is all there is to know about that system. It assumes that anything that is real can be objectively observed. Qualities of nature do not exist if they cannot be measured. Such beliefs are purely speculation. And weak-emergence cannot be scientifically verified by pure speculation. You must admit that you cannot verify that such a verification is impossible, right? =) First off, weak-emergence asserts that such verification is not possible. It claims consciousness is an epistemic emergence--beyond our comprehension. In a way the theory is preventing itself from having a chance at being scientific. Secondly, no, I cannot demonstrate that such verification is not possible. With this type of impasse, I am compelled to follow my intuition. Like blue_is_not_a_number’s name implies, I do not think conscious experience is reducible to arithmetic. It strongly defies my intuition. The philosopher Dennett once said that we should ignore our bedrock, time-tested intuitions in support of a belief system that objective science can explain everything and anything [I’m paraphrasing]. I find this assertion amusing because, ultimately, we accept objective science based on intuition. For example, my intuition tells me if I drop this rock, it will fall to the ground like the last 100 times I dropped it. Do you claim then, that "mind and matter" are two fundamentally incompatible properties of the world? If they are not incompatible then they are unified at some level by a single causal substrate and therefore the limits of observation of the causal connections are merely limits in practice and not in principal. I claim that objective measurement cannot capture all relevant qualities. There are certain qualities in reality that are hidden from our observation, but they affect the physical world. In modern physics, the effect of these hidden qualities are explained by quantum uncertainties. The limits of observation are technical and not absolute. I don’t know what you mean by this. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
have read the [ http://www.anpheon.org ] website and have a few comments.
It is not solid at all. It is fluid. ;-) You make the suggestion that because all other wave patterns we know of must propagate through some sort of medium (generally liquid or air), we might assume that light-waves and "matter-waves" should also have a medium. The point I don’t understand is why this medium must be continuous in nature, whereby the macroscopic wave mediums you are referencing are based on particle dynamics. There are many reasons. 1. The further we look into the heart of matter the more fluid-like it appears, to the point that the basic level is seen to be a super-fluid. It is well known that inviscid fluids can form self-stabilizing, quantized vortical structures. This is basically what an atom actually is with a few unforeseen consequences of wave-mechanics and fluid-dynamics. Every so-called ‘fundamental’ particle, (of which there is a large and growing number), has a wave nature. This says that the particles have substructure of a compressible fluid sort in order to transmit those waves (and they are thus not fundamental). Every ‘particle’ is fluidly convertible into other particles and all but two of them are highly unstable and spontaneously decay into other particles. There are also a large number of quasi-particles, called “resonances”, produced in the experiments. 2. There is zero evidence that any *fundamental* a-tomic particle exists. The theory of Quarks is very problematic and completely ad hoc. It is an entirely hypothetical accounting system built for dealing with the numbers and ratios gleaned from the observational data. You can’t predict any new scientific finding based on quantum chromodynamics and all the numbers must be derived by experiment and simply plugged into the system. There is a continual stream of suprising data obtained for which the model must be constantly updated. This is quite reminiscent of Ptolemy’s Earth-centric model of the solar system which could not make accurate long-term predictions and had to be continually adjusted and fixed with ad-hoc epicycles (forces and force-carrying particles) in order to maintain its relative ‘accuracy’. 3. There is zero evidence that the void actually exists. Every part of observable space is filled with “quantum fluctuation” and wave energies. There are wave energies and fields propagating and existing between all ‘fundamental’ particles and all macroscopic objects of all sizes. 4. The kinetic atomic theory of gasses, liquids and solids has many known conceptual problems dealing with sound-propagation and the ideal-gas-law etc. The continuum compressible fluid model solves those problems. 5. The continuum model does not require the hypothetical and metaphysically-problematic, duality of matter-and-void, thus it has a fewer number of hypothetical axioms and is therefore not as prone to error. This is in line with Occam’s Razor. 6. The continuum model provides a scale-independent, root-level unification of all of Physics. “It's the cat that catches the most mice that is the best cat; regardless of its color or its name.” Fluid dynamics, such as what we see with Bernoulli’s principle, are caused by a bunch of microscopic molecules bouncing around. So you have been told. All fluid motion in the standard theory is based on the kinetic atomic theory via the ideal-gas law, which is at a total loss to explain the inviscid fluid flow seen in ‘super-fluids’. In the absence of heat, (i.e. inter-atomic collisions which is the core of the kinetic atomic model) how can fluid flow still exist? Even more problematic, how can this non-kinetic-atomic fluid flow be even more fluid and flowing then when the kinetic-atomic motions of heat are present? It is well known that no gas actually obeys the ideal gas law precisely and the fewer number of atoms in a gas the more closely the gas approximates the ideal gas law. This strongly suggests that the atoms actually get in the way of that which is in fact modeled by the law: the inviscid, fluid-dynamic continuum itself of which the atoms of the gas are composed. The inertia and frictional forces of these gas atoms impart a viscosity which causes the deviation of all molecular gasses from the ideal gas law. It is well-known that ALL atoms are compressible. This, right there, prohibits the ideal gas, billiard-ball-elastic-collision, model from being the true and only model. The kinetic-atomic, ideal-gas model is known to be insufficient, yet they teach it in all basic physics classes as the single explanation of what a gas is. It does not take into account the substantial effects of the van der Waal’s attractive/repulsive forces which prohibit the billiard-ball collisions that are the core of the ideal gas law. The billiard ball model of gasses is simply untrue and it has never been observed. The continuum model can explain it better without the problems of the kinetic atomic theory. Sorce Theory acknowledges that there is necessarily an inter-molecular vibratory effect that does occur between molecules and is part of what we know as heat, but these ‘collisions’ do not hold the singular, foundational importance currently taught in physics classes. It seems to me that in order to draw an equivalent idea with the quantum world, we would have to presume that matter-waves travel through a medium of even smaller entities. It is the “equivalent idea” that is faulty. There is no matter-and-void duality. Both ‘a-tomic matter’ (i.e. fundamental and sub-structureless matter) and the ‘void’ are much too simple to actually exist. This over-simplified reductionist model is the source of all the core errors encountered in “Modern Physics”. Matter, at the root level is animate and continuous, not inanimate and discrete. Asserting a continuous medium does not make sense, because that would be something completely different from other wave-mediums that we see. Why would the same fluid dynamics work? What concept am I missing? Problems with the kinetic atomic, ideal-gas model aside-- continuous matter is inherently compressible. That concept is the key. Compressibility means that pressure waves can transmit through it. The understanding of Bernoulli’s principal in Sorce Theory is similar to the kinetic atomic model, but it doesn’t require the hypothetical and problematic a-tom and void. It is simply not necessary to view it from the kinetic-atomic model, though it is certainly possible that particles made out of raw matter exist far beneath the sub-atomic level. The medium (particulate or not) is in constant random motion on all scales. This contributes to the omni-directionality of the pressure exerted by the substance, therefore if you unify the motion, you unify the direction of pressure, increasing it parallel to the direction of motion and decreasing it perpendicular to the direction of flow. In any case, I could not really do a very thorough review of it because you have not yet been able to post some of the core material behind the theory. The introduction pretty much lays out the concept and the conclusion. If you could point me to any material that justifies the theory on the basis of explaining the experimental results of particle physics, I would appreciate it. I am still working on the tedious digitization of the original core work, “The Orb”. It will be available as a pdf download within a month, I think. For now, check out this concurrent continuum fluid model. This independent and quite recent model is quite limited in its scope and quite a bit different from Sorce Theory, but it provides a good proof of concept and some good data as well. http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/webedit/allweb/new s/Philosophy_of_Science/ptaeth2.pdf As far as Gödel’s Theorems are concerned, the point is that you cannot encapsulate all of reality into a complete, unified formal system. Of course. This is the obvious and inescapable difference between theory and reality. Any logical representation of reality that we have is doomed to be either incomplete, or paradoxical. Correct, that is why Sorce Theory is open-ended. Unlike quantum theory, Sorce Theory admits incompleteness and this is actually its strength. Hopefully it can avoid a premature ossification seen in the take-over of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Based on that statement, I would agree that Gödel does not apply. However, I had a different impression from your other descriptions. On your website, you claim: "The result is a completely causal explanation of ALL of physics with no internal contradictions." Physics only *claims* to be complete. It simply is not. Sorce Theory understands this and it explains the finite observation-based, data-set of Physical Science coherently and it simultaneously deletes (through explanation) the many mysteries and incompatibilities within that finite data-set. This becomes a problem when you assert that the theory describes the "root-cause" of everything. The ““root-cause” of everything” is different from an absolutely complete description of EVERYTHING, which Sorce Theory is not. If the root cause actually *is* a continuum then understanding this, in itself, is rather trivial and unproblematic. It gets interesting and quite powerful, however, when you use this ‘root-cause’ to explain the emergence of all the ‘forces’ and ‘basic items’ of observable nature as organizational consequences of the one, basic, fluid-dynamic, material pressure. The implication of the theory is that every event occurs out of causal necessity and this causal necessity can be described by this formal system. In essence, there is a certain realism to the physical laws laid out in the theory. The laws are human constructs, but they relate directly to real world mechanics. And in the end, the theory becomes incomplete because there is nothing that necessitates the real world mechanics. The Gödel contradiction only occurs if you claim the Sorce Theory is a Theory of Everything. It is not a theory of EVERYTHING, just all of Physics. It is quite obvious that we simply do not have an infinite data-set to deal with, and Occam’s Razor prohibits us from making unnecessary postulates for the unobservable, non-existent ‘data’. Sorce Theory, like biology, as I have said repeatedly, is open-ended. It is not a closed logic system. You seem perfectly content in not worrying about the necessity of the underlying mechanics. To me, however, it resembles a valid argument based on an illogical premise. The theory is attractive on the basis that it provides a *logical* explanation for all phenomena, but the attraction is lost because Gödel tells us there is no possible logical reason for the explanation. The necessity and reason is that the mechanics can actually be observed, via the wave and fluid nature of all matter and space. It can also be seen in the inviscid nature of non-kinetic-atomic fluid motion. If it can be seen, then it must therefore exist. It is not based on logic as much as it is based on observation. The logic only comes in because we cannot understand wave-motion (and much else) without a substrate to enact those waves and there is no need for the cumbersome and problematic duality of a-tom-and-void. Dualistic-holism? Let me clarify that the dualism is illusionary (as you put it) and based on emergence within the system. The space-time duality I described is a conceptual tool. It is “illusory”. It is “ill” and it is for “losers”. ;-) Just kidding. The illusion is perhaps a useful mental tool provided you see that it is an illusion. My whole point of the Gödel discussion is to illustrate that your model is necessarily not complete. Which I have admitted of ALL theory from the very beginning. It is a good point nonetheless and I completely agree with it whether or not it formally applies to Sorce Theory. If Sorce Theory accurately predicts physical events in a way they could not be predicted before, I would certainly see scientific value in it. In 1965, the theory described the mechanisms of gravitation which give rise to the fine-structure deviations of all gravitational fields. In the 1980’s, the theory was still known only by the author and yet there was a series of independent gravimetric experiments which showed very fine-scale deviations in the strength of the g-field of the earth exactly as described by the theory ~twenty years earlier. The science at the time could not explain the data so they hypothesized a fifth and sixth ‘force’, to ‘force’ the mathematics to more accurately model the data. As a metaphysical worldview, however, I do not believe you can claim it is superior because it rests on a logical foundation, because, well ... I do not believe it rests on a logical foundation. Of course I can claim anything I want, and you can believe it or not, but the point is that there is a unified and coherent model which gets beyond the many problems, dualities, paradoxes, incompatibilities and mysteries of modern Physics. You have clearly developed a strong emotional attachment to your theories. I applaud this from the perspective that it will feed your ambition. Just be careful it does not serve to close your mind. Good advice. My ‘emotional’ response is due to the distaste of the disabling effect the standard model has on the mind of mankind. I am a strong advocate of human understanding and I don’t like it when a theory unnecessarily takes hold of culture and causes world-wide programmed ignorance. BTW, this is what I meant by “programmed ignorance”. This assertion is based on a heavily functionalist point of view: if a functional model can be made for some physical system, then that is all there is to know about that system. I am not familiar with your labels, but I certainly wouldn’t claim that “if a functional model can be made for some physical system, then that is all there is to know about that system.” Or that “It assumes that anything that is real can be objectively observed.” Qualities of nature do not exist if they cannot be measured. I completely disagree with this “weak emergence” claim. Just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean that it necessarily doesn’t exist. This has been proven over and over in science via everything new that it has observed in nature. Certainly we didn’t create all this ‘novelty’ merely by the act of observation? Such beliefs are purely speculation. And weak-emergence cannot be scientifically verified by pure speculation. To me, emergence doesn’t have anything to do with the ‘weak emergence’ position you put forth. I am simply not arguing for ‘weak emergence’. I am just saying that without some form of emergence then much of science would be incomprehensible, such as statistical mechanics, biology, population dynamics, bulk properties of matter, flocking behavior, hive-mind properties, society, animal intelligence, human consciousness etc. It is far too obvious that when collections of ‘units’ get together then collectively at a larger scale new properties can emerge based on the organization of the units. I cannot demonstrate that such verification is not possible. With this type of impasse, I am compelled to follow my intuition. Like blue_is_not_a_number’s name implies, I do not think conscious experience is reducible to arithmetic. It strongly defies my intuition. And mine as well. Arithmetic is simply not the foundation of understanding. The philosopher Dennett once said that we should ignore our bedrock, time-tested intuitions in support of a belief system that objective science can explain everything and anything [I’m paraphrasing]. I don’t think it was quite that simple of course. 8] I claim that objective measurement cannot capture all relevant qualities. There are certain qualities in reality that are hidden from our observation, but they affect the physical world. In modern physics, the effect of these hidden qualities are explained by quantum uncertainties. I completely agree with that statement except the tacit assumption that measurement is equivalent to scientific or non-scientific understanding. We can understand these things intuitively based on scientific explanations but quantification has its obvious limits. I also don’t agree that the notion of “quantum uncertainties” is a real explanation of anything but the incompleteness of quantum theory. The limits of observation are technical and not absolute.
It was ill-stated. I simply mean that the current, eroding, technical limits of observation do not impose fundamental limits on reality. There is no fundamental reason that we can’t understand (with limits of precision) how observable reality, including the brain, actually works. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Subtillion:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
leodegan to SubtillioN:
First off, weak-emergence asserts that such verification is not possible. It claims consciousness is an epistemic emergence--beyond our comprehension. In a way the theory is preventing itself from having a chance at being scientific.
Could you give a short description of weak emergence vs. strong emergence? Since you mention my name: You might also be interested in my homepage ( http://www.occean.com ) and my previous discussions with subtillioN (as well as Peter LLoyd's). Among other things, we discussed quantifiability, verifiability, [Paul Davies'] holism, physical events being causally closed (or not), Daniel Dennett's materialism, the reality of conscious experience, "physical" vs. "mathematically describable", and related points. These points are directly relevant for your discussion of verifiability. Let me know if you'd like to discuss them. Their implication is that verification can be demonstrated to be in fact impossible as long as one understands verification in a sense that is close enough to today's science of physics. Similar to what you wrote, this leads to a contradiction with the initial assumption of having a mathematically describable (-physical) phenomenon. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Similar to what you wrote, this leads to a contradiction with the initial assumption of having a mathematically describable (-physical) phenomenon. It is important to note that the conclusion is only that the mathematical model cannot be *absolutely* complete. It can be functional, however, and quite useful to help with gaining an intuitive understanding of the phenomenon in question. As of yet you have given no reasoning to suggest that such a relatively useful mathematical model of consciousness is impossible. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It is important to note that the conclusion is only that the mathematical model cannot be *absolutely* complete. It can be functional, however, and quite useful to help with gaining an intuitive understanding of the phenomenon in question.
The limitations to mathematical description that you have accepted so far (as far as I can tell) are purely formal. They also (or actually: primarily) apply to phenomena which are quantifiable in principle. However my major point was to show that the qualia of conscious experience is not quantifiable at all. I think you have so far mostly avoided addressing this distinction (in effect the distinction between "conscious-size" and "conscious-how"), however that does not mean that I have "given no reasoning". There might be a "relatively useful mathematical model" which would describe "conscious-size" (the information from sensory perception which we are conscious of) to some extent, but it would not give any "intuitive understanding" of conscious-how ('qualia', how we are conscious of visual information: by seeing it in color), and neither any understanding of our awareness of, and our reflection on, and our statements about, conscious-how. So, the conclusion you talk about is your conclusion (or: our common conclusion). The conclusion I am actually suggesting goes much deeper. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The limitations to mathematical description that you have accepted so far (as far as I can tell) are purely formal. They also (or actually: primarily) apply to phenomena which are quantifiable in principle. However my major point was to show that the qualia of conscious experience is not quantifiable at all. First of all, I started our conversations stating that mathematics was inherently limited therefore I have always 'accepted' these limitations. In fact these limitations are very crucial to understand to move beyond the abstractness and imprecision of modern physics. Secondly you cannot verify and have not verified that “the qualia of conscious experience is not quantifiable at all”. It is mere conjecture based on an erroneous indiscrimination between the objective contents (represented '3D' objects) of consciousness and the representations thereof. I think you have so far mostly avoided addressing this distinction (in effect the distinction between "conscious-size" and "conscious-how"), however that does not mean that I have "given no reasoning". I don’t think I have avoided it. The terms simply mean nothing to me. Please define them again for me and I will address them. There might be a "relatively useful mathematical model" which would describe "conscious-size" (the information from sensory perception which we are conscious of) to some extent, but it would not give any "intuitive understanding" of conscious-how ('qualia', how we are conscious of visual information: by seeing it in color), and neither any understanding of our awareness of, and our reflection on, and our statements about, conscious-how. This is your unverifiable assertion, but my unverifiable assertion is the inverse. History will be the final judge as to what is possible or not. So, the conclusion you talk about is your conclusion (or: our common conclusion). The conclusion I am actually suggesting goes much deeper. I see that your assertion goes much deeper, but I have seen no justification for it. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I see that your assertion goes much deeper, but I have seen no justification for it. You have spoken of the importance of "intuitive understanding". I agree. Therefore let me simply put it like this: How could it be possible to tell whether a computer is seeing colors (the way we see consciously) ? My answer is that there is not and will not and can not be any way, since all we can tell is that the computer is in fact executing its program instructions. (This is the more technical version of the argument in a rather "negative" form. Personally I also like the more "positive" version on my homepage.) I expect that you might answer that physical reality is not like a computer, and actually I agree. But then you have to say something about how reality is really different than a computer. And there the limitation of symbolic representations are not enough to say, since we are talking about how the reality of the universe differs from the reality of a computer (not just about the symbolic representations of them). |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
There might be a "relatively useful mathematical model" which would describe "conscious-size" (the information from sensory perception which we are conscious of) to some extent, but it would not give any "intuitive understanding" of conscious-how ('qualia', how we are conscious of visual information: by seeing it in color), and neither any understanding of our awareness of, and our reflection on, and our statements about, conscious-how. it seems to me that you keep focusing on trying to deny a qualitative description of the AESTHETICS of color [or taste/smell/tonality/ etc] and of representation in general- this seems rather dubious to me- the quntitative description of the aesthetics of color- the blueness of blue- is not difficult once you define "blue" as light of ~5000 angstroms [I think?]- then an understanding of biological and neurophysical concepts makes all aspects of "blue" including the "poetry" of blue fairly easy to conceptulaize:5000 Å light goes in eye> cone cell receptor "goes-high" activates pulse in optic nerve> certain neural bundle modules in the visual cortex are wired to go-high and pulse when the 5000 Å pulse comes through the optic nerve> all these 5000 Å sensitive modules activate initiating an electrochemical circuit only activated by 5000 Å activity> this circuit encompases all of the distributed modules that are hard-wired to activate when 5000 Å light is detected- the more complex modular systems are clusters of various receptor bundles- these larger clusters contain more or less pulses depending upon the other receptors criteria [you look at a blue circle- a "blue and round" module pulses both "blue" and "round" but a "blue and square" module just pulses "blue"]> based upon what types of signals are recieved then reinforced/filtered/processed through the acitvated dynamic neural circuitry- some modules get more pulses/activation than others> these modules by nature of the overall architecture are reinforced and through NONCOMPOMISE come to "dominate" the neurocircuit- this domination is the process compare/identify [the "memory" of blueness IS the patterns of module activation- to remember/contemplate/muse about blueness is to reactivate the elctrochemical state in "blue" sensitve modules and fire up the "blue circuit template"] so that is a fairly consistant framework for the QUANTITATIVE description of Blues aesthetic- a qualitative description would have to explain the aesthtic nature of blue itself- HOW blue/salty/cold FEEL- like why is blue bluish and not say-sweet? this is a very complex result of adaptive evolution building sensory states in the neuralcircuitry of the visual cortex- the impetus for the aesthetics is likely a happened upon property of the overall architecture- so we have three differentiated types of signals [red/blue/green] that are mixed to form the spectrum- we can qualitatively explain how architecture allows for three disticnt signal types that can be mixed- but this does NOT realte the "feel" of color- that aesthetic quality is a result of complex spaghettifacted representational networks/schemes that emerged from billions of years in adaptive evolution- and is likely also rooted in the dynamics of electrochemistry as well- and even with a precise understanding of all these foundational factors- the profound complexity of such complex electrochemical networks makes it unlikely that any qualitative description of aesthetics is possible- I haven't had a great deal of philisophy education- but I'm pretty sure that it is not possible to even formualte a qualitative description of anything using quantitative logics- is it?- ALL Aesthetics are arbitrary emergent systems arrising from profoundly complex neurophysiology |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You have spoken of the importance of "intuitive understanding". I agree. Therefore let me simply put it like this:
I am not asserting that it is even possible for a computer (the serially digital processing machines that we know of today) to ‘see’ anything. Nor am I asserting that a computer could be conscious, and I am not asserting that any symbolic representation of the brain could be conscious either. I am simply asserting that we can understand *how* a conscious entity could be conscious. Whether or not we can verify the consciousness of any other entity, we can, in principal, understand what it actually means to see color. My answer is that there is not and will not and can not be any way, since all we can tell is that the computer is in fact executing its program instructions. Assuming that you are talking about a suitably intelligent A.I. instead of a mere computer, I would say that it will be much easier to tell that an A.I. is seeing color then it will be to tell whether another human is seeing color. We can actually build the A.I. to give us access to it’s innermost representations. I would assert, however, that the A.I. representation of its visible portion em spectrum (whatever that may be) will ‘feel’ considerably different to the A.I. than the representation of the spectrum would ‘feel’ to us as color. I expect that you might answer that physical reality is not like a computer, and actually I agree. But then you have to say something about how reality is really different than a computer. If we both agree then what is the argument? I don't really see how the computer is relevant because we both reject it in our arguments of consciousness. And there the limitation of symbolic representations are not enough to say, since we are talking about how the reality of the universe differs from the reality of a computer (not just about the symbolic representations of them). I think the differences between a computer and physical reality quite are obvious and pointless. However, I will list them despite how ridiculous they will necessarily sound: 1. Causality does not run on a central processing unit. It is omni-local, omni-directional and omni-parallel. 2. Causality does not function on transistors, linear/binary logic gates or logic of any kind. 3. Causality does not use mathematics. 4. Causality is not symbolic. 5. Causality is not confined in a little box connected to a monitor, a mouse and a printer. 6. Causality is not finite. 7. Causality is not discrete. 8. Causality does not have an on/off button. 9. Causality does not malfunction. 10. Causality does not compute, it merely exists. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I think the differences between a computer and physical reality quite are obvious and pointless. However, I will list them despite how ridiculous they will necessarily sound:
What if I were a scientist who claimed that: 11. Causality does not see colors. We have causality all over the place (I am not saying exclusively) in our known universe. So there is no reason to assume that causality has anything to do with seeing colors, which obviously does not happen all over the place. Your theories are more vague and "open" than standard physics, but they do not positively support a concept which could address consciousness, it is just less specific about its definitions. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
which obviously does not happen all over the place. the phenomenon of color vision is only one kind of signal processing- all that happens is that incomming signals are processed and converted into other kinds of signals that work within the archetecture of the brain- signal processing/conversion happens nearly everywhere in Nature- the fact that the vast majority of these processed signals are not utilizd by a sentient processing network [of course cosmic Animism is always possible!] is not important- signal processing exists because matter/energy INTERACTS- so all one needs to see blue is SPECIFIC interactions of mattrer/energy- Causality IS interactions |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
What if I were a scientist who claimed that:
You would be correct. Causality does not see colors. It is the brain that sees colors. We have causality all over the place (I am not saying exclusively) in our known universe. So there is no reason to assume that causality has anything to do with seeing colors, which obviously does not happen all over the place. That is like saying that a painting is not made out of paint just because there is paint all over the paint store and yet no paintings in that store. Think pattern and heirarchy. Substance is not pattern, but it enables pattern. Your theories are more vague and "open" than standard physics, but they do not positively support a concept which could address consciousness, it is just less specific about its definitions. You have no idea... |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Your theories are more vague and "open" than standard physics... They are actually more honest, descriptive and precise. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I haven't had a great deal of philisophy education- but I'm pretty sure that it is not possible to even formualte a qualitative description of anything using quantitative logics- is it?- ALL Aesthetics are arbitrary emergent systems arrising from profoundly complex neurophysiology My answer would be that even when we know everything about neural networks in the brain, whether it is in the form of mathematical formulas or of intuitive understanding of their mechanisms, that still doesn't tell us what blue looks like. A scientist might say I don't really care, it doesn't make a difference. However, as human beings we know from our conscious experience that there is nothing vague about the look of blue, blue looks very specifically like what it happens to look like. And we can be aware that there is somthing about blue that the "objective, mechanistic" scientist can not tell us, and we can talk about that fact and write about that fact, so it does make a difference. The point then is that this not only applies to colors but to consciousness in general, and its actions, which are therefore _potentially_ not subject to the rules of mechanisms. This _potentiality_ is already a discrepancy with contemporary philosophy and "scientific" concepts of consciousness. I find it most important to point this out, because otherwise we blindly assume that consciousness is a mechanism replacable with silicon or something else. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
My answer would be that even when we know everything about neural networks in the brain, whether it is in the form of mathematical formulas or of intuitive understanding of their mechanisms, that still doesn't tell us what blue looks like. then you believe- as i said- that a quantitative description of every intimate detail of sensory representation will not convey it's aestrhetic quality- but you make the assumption that since a logical/process-based description is not possible- that UNDERSTANDING itself is not possible- you forgot one obvious point- if aesthetic quality cannot be communicated by a quantitative description- but one CAN quantify the processes and biologics that allow aesthetics to emerge- this means that at least one way to communicate/understand is to transmit THE BIOLOGIC PROGRAM ITSELF- to copy/paste the states that cause blueness to exist- then seeing blue is understanding blue- in this way- the neurological architecture of blue-states ITSELF IS the description and seeing IS the understanding- |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
then you believe- as i said- that a quantitative description of every intimate detail of sensory representation will not convey it's aestrhetic quality- but you make the assumption that since a logical/process-based description is not possible- that UNDERSTANDING itself is not possible- I do not see "understanding" to be dependent logical/process-based descriptions or descriptions of "mechanisms". As we can be aware of seeing colors, this opens a door via this route. you forgot one obvious point- if aesthetic quality cannot be communicated by a quantitative description- but one CAN quantify the processes and biologics that allow aesthetics to emerge- this means that at least one way to communicate/understand is to transmit THE BIOLOGIC PROGRAM ITSELF- to copy/paste the states that cause blueness to exist- then seeing blue is understanding blue- in this way- the neurological architecture of blue-states ITSELF IS the description and seeing IS the understanding-
This theory seems quite plausible at first, but I am afraid that is a result of out thinking habits which are formed by thinking about plain "outer" physical reality: It assumes a symmetry between quantifiable processes and non-quantitative emergenging qualities. This symmetry is broken by our ability to talk about the emerging qualities (the conscious color experience): they therefore are additional causal factors. The symmetry is broken. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
This theory seems quite plausible at first, but I am afraid that is a result of out thinking habits which are formed by thinking about plain "outer" physical reality: It assumes a symmetry between quantifiable processes and non-quantitative emergenging qualities. This symmetry is broken by our ability to talk about the emerging qualities (the conscious color experience): they therefore are additional causal factors. The symmetry is broken. you shouldn't look for a symmetry because if you read my description again you will see that the hierarchy of processes is ordered in the form of a DIFFERENTIATION and INTEGRATION of FUNCTIONS: a kind of calculus: The aesthetics/processes [qualification] of a dynamic system are a derivative of the function described by it's architecture- the network-architecture [quantification] is a derivative of the function described by the physical principles- do you see it? a description of a network architecture must consist of physical principles- therefore a discription of the emergent aesthetics must consist of...the network archetecture! the processystem of blue IS the qualitative description ITSELF- blue is not a number- it is the function of the function of a set of numbers ;) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
you shouldn't look for a symmetry because if you read my description again you will see that the hierarchy of processes is ordered in the form of a DIFFERENTIATION and INTEGRATION of FUNCTIONS: a kind of calculus:
Yes, I see it. I guess I have to dig for my calculus books. He he he! :-D (In case my message was too cryptic or philosophical: My point was: The scientist doesn't know what emerges, but we humans do. So we still know more than the scientist. And that which we know more still makes a difference. So the scientist will note our brain activity talking about something that he doesn't know of. That is, unless you assume that those two things are identical, but we already agreed to rule that out, since one is quantifiable, and the other non-quantitative.) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
My point was: The scientist doesn't know what emerges, but we humans do. So we still know more than the scientist. And that which we know more still makes a difference. Is the scientist not human? The point that you are missing is that consciousness and all its component qualia is what the brain looks like from the inside. We already know this. It is the scientists job to explain the neural architecture that produces the experience of consciousness, i.e. what it looks like from the outside. If you can't build an intuition bridge across that gap, well, that is your problem. I have tried many times, but you seem to NEED this unbridgable gap for some reason, otherwise you could probably intuit the process. For me, the scientist is doing his job and i am doing mine. The two worlds have met and i can intuit how the immense complexity gives rise to consciousness. As /:setAI aptly said "[the "memory" of blueness IS the patterns of module activation- to remember/contemplate/muse about blueness is to reactivate the elctrochemical state in "blue" sensitve modules and fire up the "blue circuit template"]" Blue is merely a memory that is formed through the growth process. The feeling of seeing blue is simply what it's like to *be* a brain in the process of reactivating that circuit. It is up to you to bridge the gap from linear language into an intuitive visualization of the process. Good luck. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
SubtillioN,
That is like saying that a painting is not made out of paint just because there is paint all over the paint store and yet no paintings in that store. Neither paint nor paintings see colors. However, I see colors when I look at either of them, but that is something else. You could just as well lecture me about buildings being made out of bricks, or whatever. Think pattern and heirarchy. Substance is not pattern, but it enables pattern. Pattern and structure are quantitative proportions and relationships of quantitative values and extensions. I have thought enough about them. They are my personal friends. My job includes creating them. I guarantee you, they do not see colors either. Is the scientist not human? It may depend... ;-) The point that you are missing is that consciousness and all its component qualia is what the brain looks like from the inside. We already know this. It is the scientists job to explain the neural architecture that produces the experience of consciousness, i.e. what it looks like from the outside. The scientists job is to explain all the facts. Which inside? Today, scientists (of physics, chemistry, biology, neurobiology) do not seem to know anything about any inside. How can a physical process have an inside? How can a neural architecture have an inside? Who is looking from the inside? It all does not make sense in a world of objective mechanisms. For me, the scientist is doing his job and i am doing mine. The two worlds have met and i can intuit how the immense complexity gives rise to consciousness. Lucky you. Is it like a sunrise? Blue is merely a memory that is formed through the growth process. The feeling of seeing blue is simply what it's like to *be* a brain in the process of reactivating that circuit. To me, the color blue does not look like a reactivating circuit. Maybe you have the "Matrix-X-ray-view". ;-) To say that it is simply "what it is like" does not say anything. How come it looks like something? Who or what is looking? Sounds almost like Descartes. It is up to you to bridge the gap from linear language into an intuitive visualization of the process. Maybe you are phantasizing. Does it look like the green Matrix-code? Good luck. You have not even convinced me that you understand the "problem". (A problem for science, not for me: I would not even try to explain consciousness in terms of mechanisms or architecture. For me, there is no gap to bridge. Personally, I would be perfectly happy with the concepts of "measurable-size", "conscious-size" and "conscious-how" as a starting point. For me, it is clear that understanding consciousness requires contemplation, meditation, or simply attention and awareness. And I would not even think of waiting centuries for any science to find "The Answer"). |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Neither paint nor paintings see colors. Wow, you completely missed the point. And I thought it was so obvious. Pattern and structure are quantitative proportions and relationships of quantitative values and extensions. They are *not* inherently quantitative. You are limiting yourself to the realm of mathematical patterns. I have thought enough about them. They are my personal friends. My job includes creating them. I guarantee you, they do not see colors either. Your brain is a pattern, and it sees colors. The scientists job is to explain all the facts. And the critic’s job is to understand that which he criticizes. Which inside? Today, scientists (of physics, chemistry, biology, neurobiology) do not seem to know anything about any inside. Inside and outside are relative. The scientists *do* know what your brain is made out of and a good deal of how it works. You simply do not know what they know. How can a physical process have an inside? How can a neural architecture have an inside? Everything has an inside. The point is that consciousness is simply what it is like to be an active brain. It is an effect produced by the neural architecture. If the brain does not produce consciousness then why is consciousness entirely alterable by simple changes to the brain. How do *you* explain how consciousness works? If it is not a causal phenomenon then your worldview is dualistic or just simply incomprehensible. Who is looking from the inside? You ARE the inside. There is no homunculus. It all does not make sense in a world of objective mechanisms. That is because you are looking at it from an absolute black-or-white point of view. Lucky you. Is it like a sunrise? Is that what understanding feels like to you? To me, the color blue does not look like a reactivating circuit. Did I say it looks “like a reactivating circuit” from the perspective of the consciousness? If it did then we certainly wouldn’t be having this conversation. Does your body look like a bunch of cells? Does it look like a bunch of atoms. It is called a “causal hierarchy”. Ever heard of that? Maybe you have the "Matrix-X-ray-view". ;-) Yeah, maybe so. To say that it is simply "what it is like" does not say anything. How come it looks like something? The brain was evolved to form representations of the world and itself. Those representations are what consciousness is. It simply evolved to be that way. Who or what is looking? Sounds almost like Descartes. Ask a dualistic question and you will get a dualistic answer. You have not even convinced me that you understand the "problem". I never could. For me, it is clear that understanding consciousness requires contemplation, meditation, or simply attention and awareness. And I would not even think of waiting centuries for any science to find "The Answer"). Ok then, “What is consciousness?” |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Ok then, ?What is consciousness?? First, we would need to be on the same page about much more simple matters: Blue_is_not_a_number: Pattern and structure are quantitative proportions and relationships of quantitative values and extensions.
I think this is a central issue: I am not limiting myself in that way, but today's exact sciences does. And you are silently redefining scientific or quantitative terms in your personal non-quantitative or non-mathematical way. If you do so, you would have to explicitly define a complete new theory of what scientific research is, what a proof is, what causality is, what verification means, what patterns are, what architecture is, and so on. You are using scientific language but actually making vague philosophical statements in terms at best loosely defined. I would not know how to disprove your claims, but your claims are not the claims of todays exact sciences. My arguments are aimed at todays science and philosophy, but in order to convince me that the science you envision would do any better, you would have to say much more than mutating scientific language into something very vague. I am not saying that we will never understand consciousness, or that there would not be anything about consciousness to be understood, but I am saying that we will not be able to do so using the quantitative methods of todays science. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I think this is a central issue: I am not limiting myself in that way, but today's exact sciences does. And you are silently redefining scientific or quantitative terms in your personal non-quantitative or non-mathematical way. No I am not. I am merely saying that physical patterns are not inherently quantitative. Quantitative models can be made of them, yes, but physical things are not ultimately made out of quantitative models. Quite simple and obvious really. You are using scientific language but actually making vague philosophical statements in terms at best loosely defined. Loosely understood and vague to you, perhaps, but quite precisely defined nevertheless. I am not saying that we will never understand consciousness, or that there would not be anything about consciousness to be understood, but I am saying that we will not be able to do so using the quantitative methods of todays science. Luckily science evolves. Many scientists today can already intuitively bridge the gap of understanding the correlation between the mind and their models of the brain. Eventually science will evolve to the point where even the people who are not interested in understanding cognitive-science, such as yourself, would be hard-pressed to deny it. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
No I am not. I am merely saying that physical patterns are not inherently quantitative. Quantitative models can be made of them, yes, but physical things are not ultimately made out of quantitative models. Quite simple and obvious really. Same thing. Todays science of physics, chemistry, biology and neurobiology and related philosophical positions rely on the assumption that the science of physics is correct in its basic understanding of the universe using quantitative models, including a quantitative understanding of patterns. My comments apply exactly as given before. Eventually science will evolve to the point where even the people who are not interested in understanding cognitive-science, such as yourself, would be hard-pressed to deny it. I am not denying it even today. Why would I? I am saying they are missing the main point about consciousness, and wherever conclusions are drawn from the assumption that consciousness is nothing but a mechanism in the sense of today's science of physics, those conclusions will be wrong. Otherwise any of todays science is fine with me, including cognitive science. And as far as the difference between a mechanism and consciousness is concerned, I think your invocation of intuitive fuzzy logic only muddies the waters. Nothing against intuition, though. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Same thing. Todays science of physics, chemistry, biology and neurobiology and related philosophical positions rely on the assumption that the science of physics is correct in its basic understanding of the universe using quantitative models, including a quantitative understanding of patterns.
It is not the same thing at all. I said that reality is not based on mathematics and you said that todays science *is* based on mathematics. These are two seperate things and I agree with both of them. Science is not reality, however. I am not denying it even today. Why would I? I am saying they are missing the main point about consciousness, and wherever conclusions are drawn from the assumption that consciousness is nothing but a mechanism in the sense of today's science of physics, those conclusions will be wrong. Otherwise any of todays science is fine with me, including cognitive science. So you agree that an understanding of the causality behind consciousness is possible? And as far as the difference between a mechanism and consciousness is concerned, I think your invocation of intuitive fuzzy logic only muddies the waters. Nothing against intuition, though. So you think it would be clearer to *not* try and understand anything on the periphery of the capabilities of the brain? You would rather wait for some oversimplified model that you can understand without intuition? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It is not the same thing at all. I said that reality is not based on mathematics and you said that todays science *is* based on mathematics. These are two seperate things and I agree with both of them. Science is not reality, however. You said earlier: You are limiting yourself to the realm of mathematical patterns. That is what science is doing. The scientific understanding is that reality functions according to principles which are well described mathematically. In case you have missed it, science assumes that its mathematical model is related to reality. That is why it is called science. That includes the scientific understanding of patterns. Patterns are assumed to be a quantitative relationships between quantitative values. That is how we use that word nowadays. Now some of us humans are saying that that does not work with consciousness, as in "seeing-colors-as-a-conscious-experience". Your arguments are beside the point. They do not have anything to do with consciousness. You get lost in metaphysical abstractions of your personal understanding of what science should be ("intuitive"), but is not. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
That is what science is doing. The scientific understanding is that reality functions according to principles which are well described mathematically. In case you have missed it, science assumes that its mathematical model is related to reality. That is why it is called science. That includes the scientific understanding of patterns. Patterns are assumed to be a quantitative relationships between quantitative values. That is how we use that word nowadays. Yes science has fallen in love with its quantitative models to the point that they often mistake them from reality. This is a common point I often make. There are several different common meanings of pattern, however. There are quantitative patterns and there are physical patterns. When I talk about physical reality, such as how to understand the brain, I am talking about physical patterns not mathematical patterns. Your arguments are beside the point. The point I was making that the distinction science/mathematics and causal reality is crucial to this argument because all along you have been basing your understanding of reality on the limits of mathematics. They simply are not the same. They do not have anything to do with consciousness. You get lost in metaphysical abstractions of your personal understanding of what science should be ("intuitive"), but is not. That is quite a vague criticism and at least I don't confuse reality with mathematics. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You said that causality is everywhere yet consciousness isn't so causality cannot be the substrate of consciousness. I gave you the analogy of the paint and the painting that it forms to get you to think about the patterns made of causality. When I said "Think pattern and heirarchy. Substance is not pattern, but it enables pattern."
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
if aesthetic quality cannot be communicated by a quantitative description- but one CAN quantify the processes and biologics that allow aesthetics to emerge- this means that at least one way to communicate/understand is to transmit THE BIOLOGIC PROGRAM ITSELF- to copy/paste the states that cause blueness to exist- then seeing blue is understanding blue- in this way- the neurological architecture of blue-states ITSELF IS the description and seeing IS the understanding- Do you believe a colorblind person could understand what blue feels like by analyzing the quantitative description? The implication of strong-AI is that all of conscious experience can be captured in a logical pattern or algorithm, and that there is no significance of the underlying substrate. This logical pattern or algorithm, which I shall simply call "data", is all that a computer needs to generate this conscious experience. So if the experience of blue, in all of its brilliance and richness, is captured in this data, a colorblind person should be able to understand the experience by analyzing the data. Certainly, the human mind is very functional in the area of analyzing and interpreting logical structures. In principle, if a computer can generate the conscious experience by processing the data, a human mind should be able to as well. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
As of yet you have given no reasoning to suggest that such a relatively useful mathematical model of consciousness is impossible. I have no doubt that a useful mathematical model of functional behavior is possible. It may not be possible to make one that is complete, but a simplified, incomplete model is possible. Consciousness is a different story. It is one thing to model behavior. It is another thing to model any sort of conscious qualia. How does one mathematically model the sensation of blue? Even a simplified, incomplete model is not possible. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Consciousness is a different story. It is one thing to model behavior. It is another thing to model any sort of conscious qualia. How does one mathematically model the sensation of blue? Even a simplified, incomplete model is not possible. Actually it is the same thing just a bit more complicated. All sensations, even including the internal ones of consciousness, function on the same network architecture mechanisms. You claim it is not possible, but science is still in its infancy. Just wait until the computers can handle such a vast simulation as required to formulate any solid detailed models. Right now it is way to early to make such a cut-andpx;"ed prognosis. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You claim it is not possible, but science is still in its infancy. Just wait until the computers can handle such a vast simulation as required to formulate any solid detailed models. Right now it is way to early to make such a cut-andpx;"ed prognosis. It takes no science or technology to model functional behavior. F(X) -> C(X) F(X): Person X has a bright light flashed into his or her eyes. C(X): Person X closes his or her eyes. There you have it: a model of functional behavior. It may be incomplete, but it is a simplistic model. Conscious qualia is something different. No model, regardless of how simple it is, can be constructed. Subjective experience defies mathematical representation. It isn’t a matter of technology or science, but a matter of principle. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It isn’t a matter of technology or science, but a matter of principle. Principle with no basis. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Principle with no basis. Are you suggesting that induction is not a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions? It seems quite clear that we can devise mathematical models for objective systems, even if they are overly simplistic (such as the behavior example I gave before). But no mathematical model, no matter how simple, can be made for subjective qualia. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Are you suggesting that induction is not a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions? No, but what particular facts or instances are you drawing your conclusions from? What facts tell you that it is impossible to qualitatively model (not replicate) the mechanisms of conscious experience? It seems quite clear that we can devise mathematical models for objective systems, even if they are overly simplistic (such as the behavior example I gave before). But no mathematical model, no matter how simple, can be made for subjective qualia. Qualia are merely complex neural reactions. Do you suppose that they are something other? What do you think they consist of? Are the mechanisms just too complicated for us to figure out? Do you even think that they have mechanisms? If not then how does consciousness work and why do the apparent mechanisms of the brain have any effect on consciousness whatsoever? How and why are the mechanisms of the brain correlated so intricately with consciousness? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
No, but what particular facts or instances are you drawing your conclusions from? What facts tell you that it is impossible to qualitatively model (not replicate) the mechanisms of conscious experience? The same facts that I do not believe there are seven-legged cows. I have seen plenty of instances of four-legged cows, but never seven, despite scouring the Earth for such a beast. It may take a highly developed science to produce an accurate mathematical model for a complex objective system, but we can produce a simplistic model of an objective system quite easily. As our scientific understanding increases, the more accurate and less simple our models become. Yet, no one has been able to produce even a simple mathematical model of subjective qualia. Therefore, it does not seem to be an issue of developing a sufficiently advanced science or technology. Qualia are merely complex neural reactions. Do you suppose that they are something other? What do you think they consist of? Are the mechanisms just too complicated for us to figure out? Do you even think that they have mechanisms? If not then how does consciousness work and why do the apparent mechanisms of the brain have any effect on consciousness whatsoever? How and why are the mechanisms of the brain correlated so intricately with consciousness? It is quite simple: 1. Objective systems can be mathematically modeled 2. Conscious sensations cannot be mathematically modeled 3. Conscious sensations are not objective systems I believe there are qualities to our reality that cannot be observed; they are hidden from our study. Neural reactions are certainly associated with consciousness, but there are simply properties of an underlying causal substrate [as you might call it ;-)] that we cannot observe. I believe these properties to be non-reductionistic and non-structural. And thus, they cannot be reduced to mathematical models. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The same facts that I do not believe there are seven-legged cows. I have seen plenty of instances of four-legged cows, but never seven, despite scouring the Earth for such a beast. So you are saying that because you haven't seen it then it is impossible? That's not solid logic at all. Yet, no one has been able to produce even a simple mathematical model of subjective qualia. Therefore, it does not seem to be an issue of developing a sufficiently advanced science or technology. Again, your argument is entirely circumstantial. At one point many scientists claimed it was impossible to send a rocket to the moon, and their arguments were actually quite a bit more sophistocated than yours.
What kind of an argument is that? Number 2 is still purely hypothetical and a mathematical model is not the requirement for objectivity. The requirement in any unified non-dualistic model is simply existence itself. Does consciousness exist? Do I believe in duality? No, then consciousness must be part of the unfied holistic system which is sometimes called objectivity. I believe there are qualities to our reality that cannot be observed; they are hidden from our study. Neural reactions are certainly associated with consciousness, but there are simply properties of an underlying causal substrate [as you might call it ;-)] that we cannot observe. The complexity of the brain and the substance it is made of are exactly sufficient to produce consciousness. Otherwise you are left with a Ghost-in-the-machine model of consciousness which is totally unsatisfactory and problematic. I believe these properties to be non-reductionistic and non-structural. And thus, they cannot be reduced to mathematical models. I don't really care about mathematical models. The point is that the causal connections can be understood by that which transcends mathematics: the human mind. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
So you are saying that because you haven't seen it then it is impossible? That's not solid logic at all. What, do you expect an absolute logical proof based on universal assumptions? If that is your criteria, I will concede right away that I cannot give you that. You asked for facts, so I gave you facts. Now you are back to claiming it was irrational. So now I’m back to, do you not consider conclusions reached by induction to be reasonable? We can go in this circle for a long time. Again, your argument is entirely circumstantial. At one point many scientists claimed it was impossible to send a rocket to the moon, and their arguments were actually quite a bit more sophistocated than yours. I cannot see any deeper into your analogy than, “people used to say that we couldn’t do X, and now we have done it”. Please explain how your analogy has any more substance than this. Otherwise, I could say it is perfectly reasonable to expect that one day we will create the Incredible Hulk. Actually, that would be kind of cool ... What kind of an argument is that? Number 2 is still purely hypothetical I was well aware that you disagree with #2. The top half of our discussion covers #2. I was outlining my thought process. a mathematical model is not the requirement for objectivity. The requirement in any unified non-dualistic model is simply existence itself. Does consciousness exist? Do I believe in duality? No, then consciousness must be part of the unfied holistic system which is sometimes called objectivity. Ok, what is a concrete requirement for something to be considered objective? It appears that your assertion is that if something exists, then it must be objective. Please explain. Do you have evidence for this, or is this metaphysical speculation? The complexity of the brain and the substance it is made of are exactly sufficient to produce consciousness. Right, but my point was that there are properties and/or qualities of the "substance" that cannot be observed. Ok. I’m tired. Good night. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
What, do you expect an absolute logical proof based on universal assumptions? Just some supporting logic please. I won’t even go so far to try and apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem because all theories (or conjectures) are obviously incomplete. ;-) You asked for facts, so I gave you facts. Now you are back to claiming it was irrational. So now I’m back to, do you not consider conclusions reached by induction to be reasonable? We can go in this circle for a long time. You claim you are using inductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning requires supporting facts. The ‘facts’ you gave were about some absolute law, based merely on statistics, that says "cows can have no more than four legs". The statistical analogy was rather odd because it is obviously surmountable by many forms of technology and this, in a round about way, is exactly what you were trying to show was impossible wrt the understanding of consciousness. Do you really think the statistics of the average number of legs per cow are an absolute, unbreakable law? Do you really think they are grounds for inductive conclusions about the absolute non-understandability of the mechanisms of consciousness? Of course you don’t...right? If you are still claiming an inductive conclusion then your claim remains unjustified unless you have *relevant* supporting facts about the understanding of consciousness (i.e. cognitive science), not some statistics about the number of legs per cow. subtillioN:Again, your argument is entirely circumstantial. At one point many scientists claimed it was impossible to send a rocket to the moon, and their arguments were actually quite a bit more sophistocated than yours.
Technology and science are inextricable. As they evolve, the boundaries of what is 'knowable' have been significantly pushed back. Your absolute claims that the boundaries must not cross into the understanding of consciousness (and they have already crossed this boundary), require actual indesputable facts to back them up. Otherwise they are pure conjecture. What is there about consciousness to stop the march of progress from forming an understanding of it. Otherwise, I could say it is perfectly reasonable to expect that one day we will create the Incredible Hulk. Actually, that would be kind of cool ... We have already done that. ;-) Ok, what is a concrete requirement for something to be considered objective? It appears that your assertion is that if something exists, then it must be objective. Please explain. Do you have evidence for this, or is this metaphysical speculation? If you are operating under a coherent non-dualistic metaphysics then everything must be part of a single causal system. Everything must fit into this causal hierarchy by the metaphysical necessity of coherence. I call this coherent system ‘objective’ because it is real and physical (in my sense of the term, which is synonymous with causality), and it is observable in principal, provided the sensory mechanisms are built for which to observe the phenomena. I also claim that consciousness, unlike other phenomena, is observable by multiple angles: both internally and externally. It is much more observable then the quantum realm, in fact. Right, but my point was that there are properties and/or qualities of the "substance" that cannot be observed. No doubt you are talking about ‘qualia’, but the fact that we are talking about them, means that we have already observed them from our unique vantage point. Thus they *are* in a sense, objective. We just can't see their component mechanisms from the limited yet privileged vantage point from within the system. You have to get out of the system to see what it is made of. Here is a bizarre and rather loose allegory: Pretend you are an eternal prisoner in a house which is absolutely stationary wrt a local desert-like environment. Your head has been fastened into the structure of this house so that you can see none the house structure except a window through which you are forced to look. You are stuck, looking through a stained-glass window, which when superimposed on the drab landscape and the mountains beyond, forms colorful, distinct and recognizable visual patterns only visible from that particular juxtaposition of the patterned glass and distant mountainous landscape. Your eternal existence in this house has enabled you to become quite familiar with these fortuitous patterns, and in the process of trying to make sense of your predicament, you have transformed these patterns into recognizable beings, with which you have become quite comfortable. They have become your friends. Through your entire existence you have known no different and you have never been afforded a proper perspective from which to appreciate the actual predicament that you are in. You consequently have no clue that you are an eternal resident in this house or that you are even looking through a window out onto a plain. Reality is simply reality as you see it and there is no way to gain insight, from this vantage point, as to what this reality is actually composed of, i.e. the exact juxtaposition of the patterned stained-glass window and the landscape beyond. Now pretend that someone sneaks in the back-door of this house-prison, knocks you unconscious and unfastens you from your ‘eternal’ prison. He then takes you out of the house and drags you far from it and finally drops you onto the drab plain which you had eternally overlooked through the colorful stained-glass window of the prison. The house has a self-locking mechanism that ensures that there is no return without the proper key. When you awaken, you are stunned to find yourself in a completely different, baffling world. You are now on a drab, colorless landscape with rows of strange large grey boxes off in the distance. You wonder, “What happened to all the color? Where are all my friends?” You walk up to one of the virtually identical boxes and you begin to inspect it. This colorless thing is entirely alien to you. You have never seen anything like it. Walking around the box, your eyes land upon a small, square pane of dark glass with metal veins running through it. You look closely at it but there is no light shining out from within this house because this is the only window. It simply appears to you as a dark piece of veined glass inset into the side of this large grey box. The man who released you from your prison walks up to you and says, “You know, you used to be a prisoner in that house. You were fastened into its structure and have been stuck staring through that window for your entire existence. I was the one who set you free.” “Window?” you say, “House?” “What are you talking about? I was existing in a world of pure color, surrounded by all of my colorful friends. This thing here is merely a large grey box with a small dark pane of inset glass. There is no color and there are none of my friends here. You must be mistaken.” You can’t believe him because throughout your entire existence you have never seen any house nor any window or landscape. He says, “Yes, you were looking out from from this window, from right about here.” He steps right in front of the window and points out across the plain to the mountains off in the distance. “You could actually see that landscape from within the house.” You push him aside and step into his position in front of the window. You look out onto the distance trying in vain to see something recognizable. You say, “I have never seen this view in my entire life! It's not bad enough that my wonderful colorful life has vanished, but now you are lying to me; telling me that I was a prisoner in a grey house on an ugly desert? Come on! Get real!” The man tries to convince you, to no avail that you were a prisoner of that house and that from within the house, reality looks entirely different. Understandably, however, you refuse to believe him. He says, the only way you will ever know the truth is to build the key to open the door to get back in there and see for yourself. THE END ;-) Of course this little story presupposes the mechanisms of consciousness so it is not an explanation thereof. Like all allegories and analogies, this one breaks down when pressed too hard. To do so, completely misses the point. You have to ride the surface and draw the appropriate correlations to gain the insight expressed in the story. The point of the story is that it is nonsensical to imagine that consciousness is observable in the exact same way from the ‘outside’ as it is from the ‘inside’. You have to actually *be* the brain in action to experience the effect of consciousness. That is simply what consciousness is: the experience of *being* a brain in action. Once science figures out how to codify and transmit and re-instantiate the patterns of conscious experience into another brain then we can get a sense of what it is like to *be* some other brain in action. This is a long way off and it probably requires a significant upgrade to the human brain itself. A re-engineering of the soul, if you will, to unlock the transmission and reconfiguration boundaries inherent in the evolved structure of the brain. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Do you really think the statistics of the average number of legs per cow are an absolute, unbreakable law? Yeah, that cow analogy was pretty bad. You have made that plainly clear. I will try to explain my point from a completely different angle. Here is a bizarre and rather loose allegory:
Cool story. Who is the author? The point of the story is that it is nonsensical to imagine that consciousness is observable in the exact same way from the ‘outside’ as it is from the ‘inside’. You have to actually *be* the brain in action to experience the effect of consciousness. My interpretation of this statement is that there is no way to bridge the gap between subjectivity and objectivity. I will explain. Suppose the two of us are in a closed room. Inside the room with us are a bunch of toys: large inflatable balls, remote control cars, an electric train, a bucket of large Lego blocks and an electronic counting device. Even if viewed from the same angle, we will each have our own subjective perspective of the objects. However, we could come to agreement on a number of things. For example, we could agree certain objects reflect a specific wavelength of light, have certain geometries, weigh a precise amount, etc. We could agree on models of behaviors for different objects. These things we can consider objective. Aspects of our subjective experience which we can effectively communicate using the language of mathematics we can consider objective. In other words, mathematical modeling becomes the criteria by which we can classify our knowledge of the world as objective. It is quite clear that the objective models we produce of the toys in the room do not capture our entire subjective experience. We can agree that the large inflatable ball reflects light with a wavelength of 400 nm, but our sensation of blue cannot be modeled. There are simply no salient details of blueness. Now, suppose we have sufficiently advanced technology to analyze the precise behaviors of the neurons in my brain when I see the blue ball. Suppose there is a definite group of neurons that whenever I see the color blue, or even imagine the color blue, fires in a very specific pattern. We can capture every detail of that pattern and store it as a collection of data. We then label this data "Pattern Beta". The question becomes, can we ever comprehend the sensation of blue by analyzing Pattern Beta? Suppose you are colorblind and you wanted to know what the blue ball looked like to me. Can you analyze Pattern Beta to gain that understanding? This example certainly mirrors your story. Through objective study we may be able to determine that when I see a yellow light, my reaction is to hit the accelerator in my car, or when my daughter sees the color yellow, she gets excited. However, there are certain things, namely qualia, that our mathematic models cannot tell us. Should we consider qualia to be real? Of course. Should we consider qualia to be objective? Of course not. Where I believe you are going wrong is your presumption that all of causality can be comprehended. Your beliefs are deeply rooted in absolute determinism. Subjective consciousness presents a problem in these ideas. It seems to me that the only way to solidify your position is to jump into Dennett’s boat and declare qualia are not real. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Cool story. Who is the author? Thanks. I made it up on the fly to get my point across. Sometimes there is nothing like an analogy to communicate a difficult concept. subtillioN: The point of the story is that it is nonsensical to imagine that consciousness is observable in the exact same way from the ‘outside’ as it is from the ‘inside’. You have to actually *be* the brain in action to experience the effect of consciousness.
The point is that the only way to absolutely know what it is like to be someone else is to actually *be* that someone else. The “key” in the story represents the technological capabilities necessary to, in a sense, *become* that someone else. The key technology consists of sufficiently mapping out the causality that produces different conscious states. Using the key is dependent on the technological transformation of the brain into a system that can modify its physical structure (or parts thereof) into different types and patterns of consciousness. These patterns are transmitted as transformation instructions to another mind, where the other mind has to physically transform itself according to the instructions into the causal structure of that other mind. Assuming, of course, that we can map enough of the important details and transmit and instantiate them correctly in the other brain, this will enable one to actually share the other persons conscious states. There are varying degrees of ‘sharing’ that can take place and this process will be entirely reversible, mutable and generally controllable. It is very possible that the transmission of these states will necessarily be variable to a measurable degree, but I am not really concerned with absolute knowledge of EXACTLY what someone else is feeling. I believe that the differences between the brains of average human beings are similar enough to sufficiently ‘know’ what someone else is generally experiencing. I don’t expect there to be much differentiation of what the color ‘blue’ looks like and I am fine not knowing absolutely what those details are. I do believe that science will be able to give us a good idea of just how different the qualia probably are between different people, however. To me, it is obvious that we cannot attain absolute knowledge of everything or even anything, for that matter. This doesn’t suggest to me that sufficient relative knowledge is not possible. Just because we will never know EXACTLY what someone else is experiencing doesn't mean that we can't know at all. Suppose the two of us are in a closed room…
I don’t use that criteria, but I will go along with it. It is quite clear that the objective models we produce of the toys in the room do not capture our entire subjective experience. We can agree that the large inflatable ball reflects light with a wavelength of 400 nm, but our sensation of blue cannot be modeled. There are simply no salient details of blueness. The salient details are certainly not visible from the macroscopic perspective of consciousness within the room. The details are also closed off inside the brain and even if we had access to them the sheer complexity of them would defy any non-rigoruos and non-scientific examination. Even the scientific models that we now have are too complex to easily follow the chains of cause and effect to their emergent product. Now, suppose we have sufficiently advanced technology to analyze the precise behaviors of the neurons in my brain when I see the blue ball. Suppose there is a definite group of neurons that whenever I see the color blue, or even imagine the color blue, fires in a very specific pattern. We can capture every detail of that pattern and store it as a collection of data. We then label this data "Pattern Beta".
Can you hear a symphony merely by reading the sheet music of all the instruments? Can you taste a gourmet meal merely by reading the recipe? Certainly not. The representation is simply not the same thing as the thing represented. You can only draw the correlations in your mind to the point where you can abandon the linear, linguistic representational scaffolding for the growing, animated and nonlinear intuitive simulation in the mind. Certainly even this will not replicate the phenomenon in question, but it is the closest the human mind can come to an understanding of such a complex phenomenon. Consciousness is the very apex of the VAST pyramid of causality. Just like the tip of a pyramid cannot hold the entire pyramid within its boundaries, so consciousness cannot simultaneously visualize the entire causal structure within its ‘boundaries’. (It really can’t even come close.) This example certainly mirrors your story. Through objective study we may be able to determine that when I see a yellow light, my reaction is to hit the accelerator in my car, or when my daughter sees the color yellow, she gets excited. However, there are certain things, namely qualia, that our mathematic models cannot tell us. Should we consider qualia to be real? Of course. Should we consider qualia to be objective? Of course not. In my view, as you may expect, there is no absolute division between subjective and objective reality. There is both a subjective and an objective component (pov) to everything we observe, including qualia. Yes, qualia are real, but as all representations they are illusions; they look like something they are not. For example, the world looks to us as if it contains color. The fact is that it does not. Color is merely a representation of a very narrow, evolutionarily useful region of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are no quantized “primary colors” forming a nice little loop that we call “the color-wheel”. There is no color, nor color-wheel existing within the tiny visible portion of the continuous electromagnetic spectrum. This is another example of the mind breaking the world into manageable chunks for its assimilation and control. The same is true of ALL qualia. They are all simply representations of aspects of the external world. Thus as a representation, the entire mind is, in a sense, an illusion. Illusions, like everything else, are real. They simply look like something they are not: like how a movie looks like people and objects moving, talking etc, but it is really just a series of discrete frames projected onto a screen. Like the projector, the mind, too, has its own discreet flicker rate (flicker-fusion)which you can discover and manipulate by looking at a fast, rotating object. You can tell that the mind breaks motion down into discreet (though not exact) chunks because you can modulate the flicker-fusion rate of the mind and make the constantly rotating object appear to rotate backwards. I manipulated mine to the extent that it would often appear that I was moving backwards while driving down the freeway. ;-) ... kinda scary, I know. Where I believe you are going wrong is your presumption that all of causality can be comprehended. My point is that all of causality is comprehensible *in principle* and there is nothing that I have seen so far that contradicts that statement. Your beliefs are deeply rooted in absolute determinism. Yes, but my idea of determinism seems to be quite a bit different from yours. There is a strong backlash today against the concept of determinism. It is commonly assumed that determinism rules out creativity, novelty and free will. This is simply not true in a world where causality is a continuum of ‘infinite’ complexity. Causality is non-reducible at its very foundation. There is no way to ever know the absolute initial conditions of any system, therefore prediction will always contain a relative amount of guesswork. This eliminates the concept of PRE-determinism. As pointed out elsewhere, it is important to maintain the distinction between the hypothetical concept of PRE-determinism and the absolutely necessary concept of determinism. Determinism is simply equivalent to causality. There is no way of understanding anything without understanding the causal relationships beneath it. Therefore determinism is absolutely indispensable. Subjective consciousness presents a problem in these ideas. It seems to me that the only way to solidify your position is to jump into Dennett’s boat and declare qualia are not real. As shown above, that is not my conclusion. Dennett is highly misunderstood. When he says that qualia are not real, he means that they are representations of external reality. They are functional fictions, “a benign user-illusion” that corresponds truthfully to salient aspects of reality. The external world simply does not contain ‘blueness’, nor ‘sound’, nor ‘perspective’, etc.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
subtillioN to leodegan:
Yes, qualia are real, but as all representations they are illusions; they look like something they are not. For example, the world looks to us as if it contains color. The fact is that it does not. Color is merely a representation of a very narrow, evolutionarily useful region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The external world simply does not contain ?blueness?, nor ?sound?, nor ?perspective?, etc.. Colors are the most visible component of the world, as consciousness is not outside of the world. Qualia are in the world, not outside. The only world that does not contain colors is the virtual world of quantitative-scientific concepts. Of course there is a connection between the electromagnetic frequencies and colors, but both are reality. However, there is a difference between the _thought_ that the ocean is blue and seeing the color blue. That _thought_ might be called an illusion, not the qualia. So it is necessary to make a distinction between thoughts of the mind about the world and conscious experience. Those thoughts about the world are influenced by quantitative science, which does not know about qualia. So we think about the world as if did not have color. But actually only our thoughts about the world do not have color, since we think about the world as if consciousness were outside of it. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Colors are the most visible component of the world, as consciousness is not outside of the world. Qualia are in the world, not outside. Right, nothing is outside the world. I can't count how many times I have made this point to you. The only world that does not contain colors is the virtual world of quantitative-scientific concepts. The point was that color is a representation formed by the mind for electromagnetic frequency. Of course there is a connection between the electromagnetic frequencies and colors, but both are reality. That is what I said. All ilusions are real. They simply look like something they are not. The sky looks blue, but the 'blueness' only exists in my mind, which is an entirely real portion of the world as well. There is nothing that isn't real once you understand wherein lies its reality. However, there is a difference between the _thought_ that the ocean is blue and seeing the color blue. That _thought_ might be called an illusion, not the qualia. The qualia and the thought are real. The qualia, however appear to us as if they exist in external reality. The fact is that they don't. We function entirely as if they truly did exist externaly and rarely do we question it. It is only upon deeper reflection that it is realized that they are products of the mind that only appear as if they were external to it. Thus, in this sense only, can they be considered illusions. The thought, however, doesn't appear as if it were anything else. It simply manifests itself to us as a thought. Therefore it seems less of an illusion than does qualia. It is all relative, of course, to what you consider an illusion, however. So it is necessary to make a distinction between thoughts of the mind about the world and conscious experience. Those thoughts about the world are influenced by quantitative science, which does not know about qualia. Rarely are my thoughts about the world influenced by quantitative science. I simply do not calculate while I observe reality. I focus more on qualitative science. Observation of reality is inherently independent of quantitative science. After-all we have been observing reality long before mathematics and science came along. Yes science influences our thinking today, generally through its qualitative aspect, but observation of the world can exist without it. So we think about the world as if did not have color. But actually only our thoughts about the world do not have color, since we think about the world as if consciousness were outside of it. Do you really believe that color actually exists in reality *external* to the mind? Do you think that color is anything, but a representation in the mind of electromagnetic frequency? Or is the link between color and e.m. frequency simply a mysterious "correlation"? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I can't count how many times I have made this point to you. Sorry blue, that was a bit rude. This is an important part of my stance, however, and it is quite easy to grasp. Understanding my stance will make your counter-arguments that much more effective so just remember this crucial point. "There is nothing external to the world." That is the crucial element of any monism. Thanks and sorry for being so rude. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The point was that color is a representation formed by the mind for electromagnetic frequency. The word "blue" is a representation, the thought "blue" is a representation, and a scientific book about electromagnetism is a representation. That is not what is meant when one talks about "qualia". "Qualia" refers to the activity of conscious seeing, not to the activity of obtaining information about what is in front of the camera, although those go, in the case of human beings, together. Those are qualitatively different aspects of perception. That is why I am saying that Dennett is beside the point. That is what I said. All illusions are real. They simply look like something they are not. The sky looks blue, but the 'blueness' only exists in my mind, which is an entirely real portion of the world as well. There is nothing that isn't real once you understand wherein lies its reality. Why would you use the words "only in my mind" ? If you believe that consciousness is a function of the brain, then qualia must exist in the brain, not only in your brain, but also in the brain of the person in front of you (which you might call "external"). Colors as we see them are not abstractions like "quantum teleportation". The qualia and the thought are real. The qualia, however appear to us as if they exist in external reality. The fact is that they don't. We function entirely as if they truly did exist externaly and rarely do we question it. It is only upon deeper reflection that it is realized that they are products of the mind that only appear as if they were external to it. Thus, in this sense only, can they be considered illusions. The thought, however, doesn't appear as if it were anything else. It simply manifests itself to us as a thought. Therefore it seems less of an illusion than does qualia. It is all relative, of course, to what you consider an illusion, however. Qualia must exist in external reality if they are a function of the brain. There would be no other place for them to exist. As above, they are not abstractions. Thoughts are real as well, but the content of thought is abstraction. The thought that the ocean itself has "blueness" (as we see it consciously) is an illusionary abstraction (found in 18th century philosophy, I think). Some abstractions are not illusionary in that sense. But qualia are always qualia. There is nothing about them which would be illusionary. That is what Dennett mixes up. Rarely are my thoughts about the world influenced by quantitative science. I simply do not calculate while I observe reality. I focus more on qualitative science. Observation of reality is inherently independent of quantitative science. After-all we have been observing reality long before mathematics and science came along. Yes science influences our thinking today, generally through its qualitative aspect, but observation of the world can exist without it. As long as you observe reality "objectively", "externally", that means you observe it filtered through your sensory perception, which works according to the principle "more or less", it is quantitative ( a gradient?). Thus your observation of the world is already filtered by the principle of quantification, unless you include the awareness of your own consciousness. I cannot see your colors, and you cannot see my colors, and a scientist ('third person perspective') sees neither. Do you really believe that color actually exists in reality *external* to the mind? Do you think that color is anything, but a representation in the mind of electromagnetic frequency? Sounds like a dualistic question. Qualia are in no way illusionary or abstract. These categories apply only to the contents of our thoughts about the world. The distinction between "outside" and "inside" makes sense only insofar as "outside" refers to what we see through our sensory perception, and "inside" refers to what we are aware of, directly, in "our" consciousness. Both "outside" and "inside" views are at first subjective. The "objective" scientific view is an abstraction out of information filtered through sensory perception. It does not include consciousness. Having explained this, qualia simply exist in reality, both internal and external to every human being, and only external to every computer. Should computers ever evolve to the point were they do scientific research unrestricted by human narrow-mindedness, they will simply think we are phantasizing when we talk about colors, sound, pain or feelings. Or is the link between color and e.m. frequency simply a mysterious "correlation"? I am not sure I understand this question correctly, but I think the correlation between which color we see at a certain point (indexically) is a very plain correlation, yet it does not exist without qualia (substancially) which are a most mysterious different kind of thing or non-thing, whose nature is not derivable from the information that travels through the nerves from the eye onward. It seems you have rebooted your OS again. ;-) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The word "blue" is a representation, the thought "blue" is a representation, and a scientific book about electromagnetism is a representation. That is not what is meant when one talks about "qualia". Speak for yourself. We obviously have different definitions of ‘representation’. Your definitions and categories are so rigid that you cannot stretch them a bit to see what I am talking about. Effective communication involves trying to see things through the eyes of another person. If you make your categories absolutely rigid then your mind becomes fault intolerant and unadaptable. This is why you have such a hard time understanding what I am saying and we end up going over the same thing again and again. Loosen up a bit so you can understand what you are arguing against. "Qualia" refers to the activity of conscious seeing, not to the activity of obtaining information about what is in front of the camera, although those go, in the case of human beings, together. Those are qualitatively different aspects of perception. That is why I am saying that Dennett is beside the point. Do you realize how vague that sounds? What is “the activity of conscious seeing”? How is conscious seeing any different from “the activity of obtaining information about what is in front of the [eye]”? What do you think happens when you “see” something? Is it not essentially the gathering of information and forming an image to represent it? How could we see anything without making an image of it in the mind? This image is what I call a representation. It is quite a common usage of the term really. subtillioN: That is what I said. All illusions are real. They simply look like something they are not. The sky looks blue, but the 'blueness' only exists in my mind, which is an entirely real portion of the world as well. There is nothing that isn't real once you understand wherein lies its reality.
Your quest to find fault in my text causes you to misunderstand what I am saying. The best way to communicate is to run the possibilities of what I could mean through your head until the meaning most consistent with my previous statements pops out at you. Notice that I did not say that qualia do not exist in my brain, nor did I say that they don’t exist in anyone else’s brain either. You jumped to that conclusion. Colors as we see them are not abstractions like "quantum teleportation". Right, they are not symbolic nor syntactic. They are associative mental states which are activated in correlation with sensory contact with the external world. Qualia must exist in external reality if they are a function of the brain. You do not understand what I mean when I say ‘external’. I used ‘external’ instead of ‘objective’ because ‘objective’ has become synonymous with ‘physical’. When I say ‘external’, I mean outside of any brain, i.e. in the environment. When you have a thought do you assume that this thought exists outside your brain? If so, where outside your brain does it exist? There would be no other place for them to exist. How about *inside* my brain? That seems like a good place. =) As above, they are not abstractions. Thoughts are real as well, but the content of thought is abstraction. We are saying the same thing here. Thoughts, qualia and abstractions are real, otherwise they could not exist and we wouldn’t be talking about them. But qualia are always qualia. There is nothing about them which would be illusionary. Try to really understand what I am going to say before you respond. An illusion is something which looks like something that it is not. When I look at the ocean it looks blue. It looks like there is blueness in the external reality of the water itself. The fact is that there is not. There is simply electromagnetic vibrations bouncing off the sub/surface of the water. Since the water doesn’t really contain any ‘blueness’ in itself and yet it *looks* to us as if it actually did then can you not see that in this sense this ‘blueness’ is illusory? Loosen up your categories a bit to see what I am talking about. subtillioN: Do you really believe that color actually exists in reality *external* to the mind? Do you think that color is anything, but a representation in the mind of electromagnetic frequency?
The brain is a structure. All structures have an outside and an inside. The boundary obviously exists, but it is a gradient. I am simply using this boundary to make a distinction about where in the physical world the qualia physically exist. Qualia are in no way illusionary or abstract. These categories apply only to the contents of our thoughts about the world. Do you think that a movie could be possibly understood in any way as an illusion? Stretch your mind to understand what I am talking about. It is commonly understood that a movie gives the illusion of moving objects, in fact in a sense it is an illusory portal to another world. This is the same sense of the term ‘illusion’ that I am talking about. Do you not in any way see what I am talking about and how I could see qualia as an illusion in this sense? What happens when you dream? Do you suppose that you have entered a non-illusory world? Do you think that your sleeping eyes are actually looking out onto an external world? The distinction between "outside" and "inside" makes sense only insofar as "outside" refers to what we see through our sensory perception, and "inside" refers to what we are aware of, directly, in "our" consciousness. Both "outside" and "inside" views are at first subjective. “Views” are always subjective. The "objective" scientific view is an abstraction out of information filtered through sensory perception. It does not include consciousness. Having explained this,… You call that an explanation? It is merely a statement of your belief. …qualia simply exist in reality, both internal and external to every human being, and only external to every computer. Wow so you believe that qualia are external to the brain and in fact perhaps all-pervasive, except that they somehow cannot exist in a computer? That is quite a strange concept. So what is it about the computer, as opposed to a rock, that somehow repels this mysterious qualia substance? What is the connection of qualia to the brain, or is there any? Is the mind located outside of the brain as well? I didn’t realize the bizarreness of your theory until now. Strange indeed! Should computers ever evolve to the point were they do scientific research unrestricted by human narrow-mindedness, they will simply think we are phantasizing when we talk about colors, sound, pain or feelings. So you would think not knowing a thing about what qualia actually are. If they are such a mystery to you how can you be so sure that a computer cannot possess them? I am not sure I understand this question correctly, but I think the correlation between which color we see at a certain point (indexically) is a very plain correlation, yet it does not exist without qualia (substancially) which are a most mysterious different kind of thing or non-thing, whose nature is not derivable from the information that travels through the nerves from the eye onward. In other words you have no clue… It still remains a mystery to you, yet you can make absolute claims about the properties of this mysterious of all things. It sounds like the makings of a religion to me. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
An illusion is something which looks like something that it is not. When I look at the ocean it looks blue. It looks like there is blueness in the external reality of the water itself. The fact is that there is not. There is simply electromagnetic vibrations bouncing off the sub/surface of the water. Since the water doesn’t really contain any ‘blueness’ in itself and yet it *looks* to us as if it actually did then can you not see that in this sense this ‘blueness’ is illusory? This whole illusion thing seems a bit uneasy to me. I tend to agree with Blue on the subject. For something to be an illusion, it seems like there needs to be human consideration or human deliberation. It is a perspective of reality. The important part of recognizing something as an illusion is the idea that we can see through the illusion by changing our perspective. The qualia of blueness is not an illusion. We cannot change our vision and see the ocean any differently. The illusion is the concept we form about our vision: that the ocean contains the blueness. That is a perspective that can be changed. So you would think not knowing a thing about what qualia actually are. If they are such a mystery to you how can you be so sure that a computer cannot possess them? This seems to be a quite straightforward assertion Blue is making. By saying something is "mysterious", I assume that not only is it currently beyond formulation, but also beyond formulation in principle. If something cannot be formulated, how can it be simulated? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
This whole illusion thing seems a bit uneasy to me. I tend to agree with Blue on the subject. For something to be an illusion, it seems like there needs to be human consideration or human deliberation. You realize that this is a game of definitions, right? I tend to have a non-anthropocentric definition and you want to re-center it. If you see a mirage in the desert do you consider it an illusion? Our concepts are simply not as clear-cut as you would think. It is a perspective of reality. The important part of recognizing something as an illusion is the idea that we can see through the illusion by changing our perspective. Some illusions can only be dealt with by logic. Such is the case with many optical illusions. You simply cannot stop your visual system from interpreting the lines as crooked even though you know that they are parallel. This seems to be a quite straightforward assertion Blue is making. By saying something is "mysterious", I assume that not only is it currently beyond formulation, but also beyond formulation in principle. If something cannot be formulated, how can it be simulated? If it is a complete mystery then how do you know that it is not formulatable in principle. Throughout history the "mysteries" have fallen one by one to the march of scientific progress. What gives this mystery the ability to evade this historical pattern and how can you even answer this question if it is a complete mystery? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Language Game |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You realize that this is a game of definitions, right? Wittgenstein did say that argumentation was nothing more than a language game. The important part is that a word, or symbol, must be used in a consistent manner. For example, if you classify an object as a widget, you cannot change the meaning of widget to suit your argument. I am not accusing you of doing this, I am just pointing out what to look out for. An interesting aspect of this, however, is that we must use language to point out any inconsistencies, and the validity of the accusation is dependent on more semantics. In the end, Wittgenstein argues that there is no way to bridge semantics and syntax. This can be used to further the idea that the human mind cannot be represented purely with syntactical data. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Leodegan: [...] For something to be an illusion, it seems like there needs to be human consideration or human deliberation. It is a perspective of reality. The important part of recognizing something as an illusion is the idea that we can see through the illusion by changing our perspective.
Good point: the illusion can be resolved. Actually, a long time ago, I used to make an error in resolving this illusion: I told myself that the blueness is not a component of what I am looking at, but "only in my consciousness". In a sense, that is another illusion since this "explanation" does not go far enough. Not only the blueness, but the complete image we see is "our own" consciousness. The illusion is not that blueness is not really part of what we are seeing. The actual illusion is that what we are seeing is not the ocean itself, but "our own" consciousness, the projection of visual information onto our consciousness. So actually, blueness _is_ really a component of what we are seeing, and so is the horizontal and vertical extension and depth in this "space" of consciousness. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Blue_is_not_a_number: The word "blue" is a representation, the thought "blue" is a representation, and a scientific book about electromagnetism is a representation. That is not what is meant when one talks about "qualia".
Actually, I prefer your usage of the term 'representation' to your usage of the term 'illusion'. ;-) I think what we are really having trouble with is the usage of the terms 'qualia' and 'color'. 'Representation' is a functional term. It means that one thing ("A") is used to represent another thing ("B"). "A" represents "B". The only way I can make sense of your complaint about communication is that you thought I would be saying that qualia are _not_ representational. Like mostly everyone else, I understand very well that the 3D image (which we see consciously) is a representation of the sensory information obtained through sensory perception. Representation is the function of this "image". A photograph has (roughly) a similar function to represent. Both are representations. Now, there is of course a difference between qualia (conscious experience) and a paper photograph. The term qualia is usually used to speak about this difference, (except maybe by Dennett), to speak about what qualia are, other than their function as representations. This is also how Leodegan (seems to have) used the term "qualia" in the message that you responded to, he actually pointed out this very distinction in the very statement that you quoted of him. He had already mentioned the functional value before, and then went to say that there is more to them. To the best of my knowledge, the term 'qualia' has been coined in order to refer to conscious experience when talking about other things than about its representational function. It is the term used to speak about the thing "A", independently of the fact that "A" represents "B". In order to be able to function as a representation, the thing "A" has to be somehow real. This is unlike an abstraction, the content of thought, which can be just an idea of something which may or may not be real. Nothing is "merely" or "simply" a representation. Representation is "just" a function _of_ something in a certain context. At the very least, qualia also 'looks-like' or 'feels-like', in addition to being a representation. Not all representations 'look-like' or 'feel-like', for example the representations in a computer of data and software are only electrical charges and so on, but they are not colors or sounds. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
now we are getting somewhere. I actually agree with your entire post (except the comment about Dennett which is irrelevant anyway) and it is correct that 'illusion' does cast a negative feeling to the whole thing even though it *can* be seen thus. So we can use the term 'representation' just as well as 'illusion' if not better. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
To the best of my knowledge, the term 'qualia' has been coined in order to refer to conscious experience when talking about other things than about its representational function. It is the term used to speak about the thing "A", independently of the fact that "A" represents "B". In order to be able to function as a representation, the thing "A" has to be somehow real.
I would suggest that the difference is one of degree and not of kind. The fact that the brain has taken the visible portion of the entirely continuous spectrum of light and 'broken' this continuous complexity down into only three primary colors and then joined them (so to speak) into a 'color wheel' which is totally non-correlative to the spectrum that it is trying to model, is very suggestive of just how abstract the representation actually is. It is also true that the representation has an extremely high degree of fidelity with the thing that it represents, so the abstraction is highly functional and it simply doesn't appear abstract to us. In my view, every representation necessarily has a degree of abstraction, otherwise it would be as complex as the thing that it represents and would be considered an emulation or replication not a representation. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
now we are getting somewhere. I actually agree with your entire post (except the comment about Dennett which is irrelevant anyway) and it is correct that 'illusion' does cast a negative feeling to the whole thing even though it *can* be seen thus. So we can use the term 'representation' just as well as 'illusion' if not better. I would suggest that the difference is one of degree and not of kind. The fact that the brain has taken the visible portion of the entirely continuous spectrum of light and 'broken' this continuous complexity down into only three primary colors and then joined them (so to speak) into a 'color wheel' which is totally non-correlative to the spectrum that it is trying to model, is very suggestive of just how abstract the representation actually is. It is also true that the representation has an extremely high degree of fidelity with the thing that it represents, so the abstraction is highly functional and it simply doesn't appear abstract to us.
By the way, I think what I read in neuroscientific literature is that midway in this process the 3 "primary" colors (as far as the retina is concerned) get re-mapped to 7 (or more) distinct neuronal paths. Now my understanding is that the term 'qualia' refers to that which is used for representation, rather than the representation. That is, color as such is not abstract at all. Do you still agree? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Now my understanding is that the term 'qualia' refers to that which is used for representation, rather than the representation. That is, color as such is not abstract at all. Do you still agree? I thought it was the reverse. What you are saying is that there is a mysterious substance called qualia out of which the representation of consciousness is made? Seems like circular logic. In my view the mnemonic conditioning of the brain from embryo to small child and onward develops the senses in calibration with their environment. This calibrated neural circuitry in action is what qualia are made from and consciousness is the amalgam of qualia. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I thought it was the reverse. What you are saying is that there is a mysterious substance called qualia out of which the representation of consciousness is made? Seems like circular logic.
What then are qualia if they are neither abstract nor substantial? I am saying they are not abstract because abstractions are not visible or audible like color and sound. A scientific theory for example is an abstraction. When it is written down in a book, the book is a representation of the theory. The book itself is not just a representation, it is also a physical object. Representation is a function of the book, a way in which it is used. Understanding the representational function of something does not tell us what it is. So what then are qualia if they are neither abstract nor substantial? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
What then are qualia if they are neither abstract nor substantial? They are both abstract and substantial. Which aspect you can see depends on what side of the subjective/objective divide you view them from. I am saying they are not abstract because abstractions are not visible or audible like color and sound. All representations are inherently abstract to a degree otherwise they would be emulations or replications which vision and sound clearly are not. If I paint a picture of a landscape, is not the picture visible? Is it not also an abstraction? Even a realistic painting, or a photograph, contains a degree of abstraction because they have immensely simplified the information they represent. A scientific theory for example is an abstraction. When it is written down in a book, the book is a representation of the theory. The book itself is not just a representation, it is also a physical object. Right, that shows that all representations are simultaneously real and abstract. The two are not mutually incompatible. Representation is a function of the book, a way in which it is used. Understanding the representational function of something does not tell us what it is. So what then are qualia if they are neither abstract nor substantial? Qualia are the effect of the environment-calibrated neural-sensory-architecture in action. They are a process of matter and energy which is representative of external reality. Thus they are both substantial and abstract. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
They are both abstract and substantial. Which aspect you can see depends on what side of the subjective/objective divide you view them from. All representations are inherently abstract to a degree otherwise they would be emulations or replications which vision and sound clearly are not.
Right, that shows that all representations are simultaneously real and abstract. The two are not mutually incompatible. Qualia are the effect of the environment-calibrated neural-sensory-architecture in action. They are a process of matter and energy which is representative of external reality. Thus they are both substantial and abstract. I agree that all representations are abstract in their function as representations. I think it is worth noting that a painting needs someone to look at it in order to be visible in that sense. When you say both abstract and substantial, I assume with abstract you refer to the representational aspect, and with substantial you refer to the effect of active neural networks. You are saying it depends on which side of the subjective/objective divide you look from. The objective side would obviously be the neural network. This leaves the subjective side with the abstract part. Although the word and the intellectual category "blue" is an abstraction for a certain frequency of light, the color blue in the sense of qualia cannot be an abstraction, since abstractions do not have a visible color or an audible sound. There is more than information processing going on: that is why, in my understanding, the term 'qualia' is being used to refer to this "more". |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Although the word and the intellectual category "blue" is an abstraction for a certain frequency of light, the color blue in the sense of qualia cannot be an abstraction, since abstractions do not have a visible color or an audible sound. Who says "abstractions do not have a visible color or an audible sound"? Why couldn't they? Isn't every abstraction that we know of detectable by some sense? What would be the point of an abstraction if it could not be accessed through sensation? The fact that "blue" is a representation for a specific color of the spectrum means that it is necessarily an abstraction. Why is it so important for your argument to maintain that qualia are absolutely non-abstract? You have admitted that they are representations and that all representations possess a degree of abstraction, so doesn't this mean that qualia, too, are abstract to a degree? You seem to hold qualia as some inviolable, insubstantial, mystery 'substance' beyond the reach of mere mortals to question. You must think that to classify it as an abstraction is a violation of your holy qualia. I simply think it is an obvious property of all representations and in order to dispell the mystery you must admit or define the properties of the thing in question. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Who says "abstractions do not have a visible color or an audible sound"? Why couldn't they? Isn't every abstraction that we know of detectable by some sense? What would be the point of an abstraction if it could not be accessed through sensation?
The abstract representation is the _function_ of vision. The term qualia is used to refer to the concrete instances of qualia: colors and sounds. You can see them as concrete instances in your field of vision. The field of vision is not abstract, it is a concrete instance. Only the information that this image represents is an abstraction of what you see. The situation as you describe it would also exist on a computer: The image of what is seen in front of the camera exists in its memory, represented by electrical charges. The electrical charges are both real and an abstraction of what is seen. This situation is different with human beings: In addition to the above components, there are colors as conscious experience. The colors are also representations, but now there are two representations: The neural activity in the brain ("physical") and the color in the consciously seen 3D image ("conscious"). The way you described the situation does not address this distinction. If you (and/or D.Dennett) consider those two representations to be somehow the same, that would obviously require an explicit discussion of such an assumption. In fact, that is a crucial part of what the whole discussion is about. Why are qualia so important to me? Because they are consciousness. Why do call them mysterious? Because existing quantitative/structural explanations not only miss the point, but effectively deny an understanding of the facts about consciousness that we have from conscious experience. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The abstract representation is the _function_ of vision. The term qualia is used to refer to the concrete instances of qualia: colors and sounds. You can see them as concrete instances in your field of vision. The field of vision is not abstract, it is a concrete instance. Only the information that this image represents is an abstraction of what you see. We have reached the limits of minimum semantic ambiguity and are now going in circles...I don't really like merry-go-rounds. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
We have reached the limits of minimum semantic ambiguity and are now going in circles...I don't really like merry-go-rounds. It is the first time you claim such a thing. You have simply tried to return to Dennett's point of view, and that has not worked: The major point being that his account would also apply to computers, which obviously do not see colors, as you said yourself. Trying to explain that away by recasting qualia as abstractions leaves us with two representations, and the assumption that they are one and the same is exactly what all those who "like" to talk about qualia disagree with. So that is exactly what needs to be discussed, and your argument evaporates to rhetoric. The limits that have been reached are those of your own arguments (or Dennett's point of view), not those of semantics. This is a passage from your profile: The goal is to neutralize those preconceptions so that the solutions to their inconsistencies are no longer instinctually and systematically rejected off-hand. The preconceptions of the standard model of physics are not only inconsistent, but they are self-limiting! Uproot and dissolve the erroneous, incoherent, paradoxical preconceptions and it opens the way to a much more coherent (UNIFIED) understanding of ultimate reality. What you have tried in this discussion is to cast the arguments presented as such a "preconception", and what you are saying now sounds very much like your own preconception of opposing arguments as being "self-limiting" and a systematic rejection "off-hand". What has really happened, I will allow myself to say, is that you have encountered solid arguments to which you do not have answers, and you avoided admitting that by hiding behind destracting rhetoric. Your agenda does not sound scientific in the first place, as you do not respect and adequately respond to arguments that disagree with your "much more coherent (UNIFIED) understanding of ultimate reality." |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Qualia and Representation |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It is the first time you claim such a thing. You have simply tried to return to Dennett's point of view, and that has not worked: I have never changed my point of view except to adapt my definitions to your arguments for the sake of semantic compatibility. Yes, my arguments simply have not worked. Our definitions continue to be incompatible and I am tired of trying to argue pointless matters of non-adaptable language. So that is exactly what needs to be discussed, and your argument evaporates to rhetoric. The limits that have been reached are those of your own arguments (or Dennett's point of view), not those of semantics. The limits are the incompatibilty and inflexibility of our semantic structures. I tried to bridge the gap, but I am bored. Your rigidity has won out over my adaptibility. What you have tried in this discussion is to cast the arguments presented as such a "preconception", and what you are saying now sounds very much like your own preconception of opposing arguments as being "self-limiting" and a systematic rejection "off-hand". All I am saying is that the absolute limits placed on all knowledge and theory are meaningless. There is a relative amount of mystery beneath all theory. Therefore the limits that you continually try to invoke as exclusively applicable to qualia are irrelevant. What has really happened, I will allow myself to say, is that you have encountered solid arguments to which you do not have answers… Your arguments are circular. Therein lies their ‘solidity’ and consequently they retain the 'mystery' inherent in all circular logic. You continually argue past my points as if I have never stated them, constantly assuming that I am saying something I am not. This gets tiresome and just plain annoying. All you are ultimately saying I that qualia are made of qualia. That explains nothing. It is useless to me. …, and you avoided admitting that by hiding behind destracting rhetoric. So if I get bored with an impasse then I am “hiding”? Ok, you have succeeded in not being moved by my argument. All that is required of that is an inability to understand my arguments. Your arguments are “solid” in that respect. Is that a good thing? Not if you want to understand what you are arguing against. Your agenda does not sound scientific in the first place, as you do not respect and adequately respond to arguments that disagree with your "much more coherent (UNIFIED) understanding of ultimate reality." Is the goal of unification and coherence not scientific? Perhaps not. If this is true, then my goal is more metaphysical than scientific. The cited statement above is about a model of physics which you have never learned. It is not stating that knowledge is absolute and that mystery mongers such as yourself can’t capitalize on the relativity of all theory to attempt to replace relative explanation with absolute mystery. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Leodegan: In other words, mathematical modeling becomes the criteria by which we can classify our knowledge of the world as objective.
The word "objective" may not be the best word; it often means "physical" or "real", which is not quite the interpretation I am going for. The point I am trying to make is that our mathematical models are limited and will never capture qualia. There is no way we represent qualia with structured patterns. The salient details are certainly not visible from the macroscopic perspective of consciousness within the room. And thus, we have something real that is absent of salient details... something with no pattern... no structure. Our tools of logic and language have nothing to grip or fasten to when considering qualia. How does something absent of patterns or structure get caused? These patterns are transmitted as transformation instructions to another mind, where the other mind has to physically transform itself according to the instructions into the causal structure of that other mind. Assuming, of course, that we can map enough of the important details and transmit and instantiate them correctly in the other brain, this will enable one to actually share the other persons conscious states. There are varying degrees of 'sharing' that can take place and this process will be entirely reversible, mutable and generally controllable. I have no doubt we can correlate very specific neural patterns with qualia. Like I said, we have Pattern Beta. It may be possible that an evil scientist could sever my sensory inputs and use an evil tool to simulate the proper neurons in my brain to create the sensation of blueness. From what I know of neuroscience, this should be possible. I am actually open to the idea you have stated above. I cannot deny it in principle. It does sound to be an extremely difficult task, however. Even if our brains have a similar neural architecture, any mature adult will have very different configurations with very different connection strengths between neurons. Simulating a set of neurons in one adult will very likely have different results than simulating the same set of neurons in someone else. In any case, your scenario only signifies a correlation. I can hold up a blue envelope to create the sensation of blueness, which is technically far simpler than my evil scientist’s method. In either case, it does not mean we know how qualia are actually caused. As an example, my grandma knows that when she types "chitty chitty bang bang" into her word processor and hits the print button, the printer across the room will eject a piece of paper with the words "chitty chitty bang bang" on it. She does not have to know all of the technical details of how the computer, network and printer work to understand this correlation. In the end, there will always be a very important piece missing in the puzzle. Even if we get to the point where we can stimulate someone’s consciousness in very calculated ways, we will never be able to model causes of qualia. For if the causes of qualia were not beyond our reason, we should be able to analyze the Pattern Beta and say, "oh yeah, that IS what blue looks like to me." I manipulated mine to the extent that it would often appear that I was moving backwards while driving down the freeway. ;-) ... kinda scary, I know. That is insane! Does it depend on the speed you are traveling? I mean, if you accelerated or decelerated, would you loose your modulation? My point is that all of causality is comprehensible *in principle* and there is nothing that I have seen so far that contradicts that statement. In other words, everything we have comprehended so far has been comprehensible. Ok. So, what is this principle based on? What is keeping any of nature’s causes to be beyond our reasoning? It is commonly assumed that determinism rules out creativity, novelty and free will. This is simply not true in a world where causality is a continuum of 'infinite' complexity. I would agree with you regarding creativity and novelty on the basis that those have far too subjective interpretations, and I agree that the infinite complexity rules out predictability. Having said that, I believe freewill may be a different matter. To some extent, we all have to concede that we feel like we have freewill. The question is, what is the true nature of our freewill? Is it epistemic, or is it ontological? By epistemic, I mean there is a false impression of freewill we have due to our awareness of other choices we *could* have made. By ontological, I mean there is an aspect of our decision-making that was not determined by external forces. Epistemic freewill must concede that our decisions are a causal necessity, resulting purely from our genetic composition and our environmental influences. In other words, there is no other way our decision could have happened any differently, given the specific state of the world the moment we were born. Ontological freewill implies there is an agent, or an aspect of our identity that factors into our decisions. This agent is free in the sense that it is not bound to any necessity. It has an awareness that it acts upon. Dennett is highly misunderstood. When he says that qualia are not real, he means that they are representations of external reality. They are functional fictions, "a benign user-illusion" that corresponds truthfully to salient aspects of reality. The external world simply does not contain 'blueness', nor 'sound', nor 'perspective', etc.. He is using clever verbalism in order to eliminate the need to come up with that missing puzzle piece I talked about before. In the end, he would have to assert qualia do not exist. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
subtillioN: The salient details are certainly not visible from the macroscopic perspective of consciousness within the room.
So because I can’t see the cells of my body does that mean they don’t exist either? The details of consciousness are both microscopic and hidden from view. This doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Our tools of logic and language have nothing to grip or fasten to when considering qualia. How does something absent of patterns or structure get caused? The entire thing is one endless hierarchy of causality. The details of the micro and macro levels are simply too small and large (respectively) to be seen from the meso-scale. In any case, your scenario only signifies a correlation. I can hold up a blue envelope to create the sensation of blueness, which is technically far simpler than my evil scientist’s method. In either case, it does not mean we know how qualia are actually caused. We already know with a great deal of confidence how they are generally caused. It is simply the causal networks of the brain. There is not really much scientific doubt about that. It is merely the vast details that are hard to grasp. These details are only necessary for neuro/cognitive scientists and engineers and people who want to know them to satisfy their own curiosity, however. It doesn’t really concern me that knowledge is relative and difficult to attain wrt complex subjects. In the end, there will always be a very important piece missing in the puzzle. Even if we get to the point where we can stimulate someone’s consciousness in very calculated ways, we will never be able to model causes of qualia. For if the causes of qualia were not beyond our reason, we should be able to analyze the Pattern Beta and say, "oh yeah, that IS what blue looks like to me." Ok. The critical distinction to be made here is that there is a difference between ‘reason’ and ‘imagination’. You are correct that the human mind will never be able to contain, at any one time, a significant percentage of the details of the causal structure of qualia. This is a limitation on the power of the imagination. The “Pattern Beta” would be a tome of 4D, non-linear data that you would have to tediously translate through the linear process of language, like passing the leviathan through the eye of a needle. To do so you have to reduce it to the size of a flea! It would thus entirely change the nature of the thing represented. It is also true that the mind has great powers of intuition, logic and generalization. It can understand things intuitively and formulate general heuristic truths about the functioning of vastly complex processes. This is what I call reason. IMHO, reason has already formulated correct generalizations of how qualia actually work. The generalizations of reason will only get more and more accurate as time goes on. As far as I am concerned, we already have an ‘understanding’ of the mechanisms of qualia, we just can’t imagine all of the details. Similarly, we understand the process of evolution, but there is no way that we could ever fit all of those details inside the mind. subtillioN: I manipulated mine to the extent that it would often appear that I was moving backwards while driving down the freeway. ;-) ... kinda scary, I know.
It seems quite flexible. The mind simply has to detect relatively constant motion and then the module flips into action, so yes if you slow down too much then you will loose the modulation. I have also noticed other quantized effects. For instance, I used to play rather loud white noise to sleep to and every once in a while, when I would begin to fall asleep, at a crucial point between asleep and awake my attention would catch the sound of the white noise start to strobe on and off. I am not sure if my brain was shutting it off and there was a feedback loop between my attention catching it and turning it back on and then losing the attention again as it shut it off yet again, or what. The rhythm was quite fast, about a cycle per second, so it was a fairly small-scale effect. My point is that all of causality is comprehensible *in principle* and there is nothing that I have seen so far that contradicts that statement.
Understanding the differentiation between ‘reason’ and ‘imagination’, nature is inherently intelligible because of the fact that all of nature is organized through the singular hierarchy of causality and the mind itself is part of this singular causal system. There are patterns that recur on many different levels, like the self-similarity of a fractal. This means that there can be a sort of ‘resonance’ between the already resonant structures of nature and the mind as an integral part of that ‘fractal’, self-similar, structure. The mind is ultimately nature forming representational, harmonic, echoes of itself. Having said that, I believe freewill may be a different matter. To some extent, we all have to concede that we feel like we have freewill. The question is, what is the true nature of our freewill? Is it epistemic, or is it ontological? By epistemic, I mean there is a false impression of freewill we have due to our awareness of other choices we *could* have made. By ontological, I mean there is an aspect of our decision-making that was not determined by external forces. What about internal forces? In my view, the self is a vast hierarchical continuum of causality. It is exactly this system that chooses what it wants to do, based on its own limited knowledge. Consciousness is merely a surface phenomenon on top of the vast causal complexity of the self. If you identify yourself simply with your top level consciousness then you will see your own body as functioning, too a large extent, without your control. You will see that the unconscious mind and its deeper levels of causality play a large role in the choices the self makes. If you exclude those deeper levels from your identity you will see your “self” as merely a pawn in nature’s game. Conversely, if you identify yourself with the *entire* process of causality that forms the self then it is yourself as causal heirarchy who has the control. When you identify yourself with nature, then you are the one actually playing nature’s game. Epistemic freewill must concede that our decisions are a causal necessity, resulting purely from our genetic composition and our environmental influences. In other words, there is no other way our decision could have happened any differently, given the specific state of the world the moment we were born.
The entire dilemma is formed by the reductionist split between the self as consciousness and the integral deeper levels of causality. We have simply dissociated ourselves from causality and have assumed a mind/body split which gives us the either or choice that one must control the other. It is either a mind controlled world (religion/spiritualism/mysticism) or it is a body controlled world (reductionism/materialism/scientism). The fact is that there is no split and there is an integral causal feedback between the mind and body. They are completely inseparable and together they form the self. It is the integrity and order of causality mixed with the control mechanisms of the mind that gives rise to freedom. subtillioN: Dennett is highly misunderstood. When he says that qualia are not real, he means that they are representations of external reality. They are functional fictions, "a benign user-illusion" that corresponds truthfully to salient aspects of reality. The external world simply does not contain 'blueness', nor 'sound', nor 'perspective', etc..
Not at all. It is far too obvious and undeniable that qualia exist. I am pretty sure that Dennett would agree. Qualia are simply representations of reality. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Logical Models of Qualia |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
So because I can't see the cells of my body does that mean they don’t exist either? Of course not. But the goal is to develop a scientific theory where all of the dots connect and account for all known data, however it is acquired. We already know with a great deal of confidence how they are generally caused. It is simply the causal networks of the brain. There is not really much scientific doubt about that. No, we don’t understand the complete chain of causality. Take my Grandmother and her computer. She certainly understands there is a chain of causality between her pressing the print button, and the printer across the room printing, but she does not understand all of the links of the chain. Take the idea that someone could analyze Pattern Beta and understand the subjective experience based on that analysis. For example, a blind person understanding what blue feels like. Lets call it Proposition Beta. We both seem to think that Proposition Beta does not make sense. Your story of the house in the desert illustrates this. However, you (and Dennett) seem to think that Proposition Beta is irrelevant, which is a position that does not make sense to me. Certainly, we would have to believe that our scientific understanding was more advanced if Proposition Beta was accomplished than if it was not accomplished. If qualia are to be considered real, how could we expect to have a complete understanding of them without the validation achieved with Proposition Beta? Otherwise, we are no better off than my grandma’s understanding of how her computer and network works. Ok. The critical distinction to be made here is that there is a difference between ‘reason’ and ‘imagination’. You are correct that the human mind will never be able to contain, at any one time, a significant percentage of the details of the causal structure of qualia. This is a limitation on the power of the imagination. My grandma may have a fantastic imagination, but that won’t help her draw a schematic of how all of the components in her computer operate. Ultimately, science will demand a greater explanation than just imagination. There is not one single person that understands how every system within a 747 works, yet every detail of each system is understood by at least someone. The important part is that all of the dots line up—that there is no missing gaps. One person may not have an end-to-end understanding of every detail of a system, but there should not be any gaps missing in the collective understanding. The "Pattern Beta" would be a tome of 4D, non-linear data that you would have to tediously translate through the linear process of language, like passing the leviathan through the eye of a needle. To do so you have to reduce it to the size of a flea! It would thus entirely change the nature of the thing represented. The wonderful thing about logical data structures is their ability to be crunched for analytical purposes. Who says we have to analyze the data in the specific format it was originally given to us? We can bunch it, summarize it, and cluster it however it makes it easier to comprehend. There is nearly an endless supply of different possible views of the data. For example, suppose we have never seen a tree before, but were given data for the geometry of a tree in the form of 10 billion data elements. Of course no normal human would be able to conceptualize the tree by looking through pages of this data. Using a computer, however, we could process the data to form a view of the tree from nearly an unlimited number of different perspectives. We should not be limited to one perspective if we have the raw data. It is also true that the mind has great powers of intuition, logic and generalization. It can understand things intuitively and formulate general heuristic truths about the functioning of vastly complex processes. This is what I call reason. I agree. This supports my statement above. IMHO, reason has already formulated correct generalizations of how qualia actually work. The generalizations of reason will only get more and more accurate as time goes on. As far as I am concerned, we already have an 'understanding' of the mechanisms of qualia, we just can’t imagine all of the details. I would like to see the formulas. Or are you talking about imagination again? I actually agree that we can develop some kind of understanding of how qualia are formed, based on imagination and intuition. However, unless you can provide a logical model for it--a formulation if you will--it remains a mysterious sort of understanding. Human intuition must connect the dots that our scientific data cannot fill. So if we are to believe that the human mind can develop an understanding or awareness of a physical system that goes beyond logical formulation—in principle—what are we left to believe about the capabilities of the human mind? This idea seems to feed into Penrose’s arguments. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Logical Models of Qualia |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
subtillioN: So because I can't see the cells of my body does that mean they don’t exist either?
The goal is understanding and absolute knowledge of the causal mechanisms of any single system is impossible. I said the patterns were invisible from that particular perspective and you jumped to the notion that this implied the patterns were non-existent and to the question of how the ‘structureless’ could produce structure. The fact is that the details which would show whether the field was structured or not were not visible from that perspective. The truth is that we KNOW that in fact there IS substructure beneath the mind. It is called the brain. subtillioN: We already know with a great deal of confidence how they are generally caused. It is simply the causal networks of the brain. There is not really much scientific doubt about that.
How many times have I said that we can never understand the complete chain of causality of anything? Too many. We are going in circles and circles and... Take the idea that someone could analyze Pattern Beta and understand the subjective experience based on that analysis. For example, a blind person understanding what blue feels like. Lets call it Proposition Beta.
Do you not understand the inherent difference between a linguistic representation and the thing it represents? They can never be identical nor functionally equivalent. That is why the recipe will never taste like the gourmet meal. Would you say that we can never understand a gourmet meal because we can’t get a recipe to taste just like one? Oh yeah, it is true that we can never formulate an absolute linguistic theory which could give you the flavor simply by reading it. What does this prove? Simply that theory and reality are non-equivalent. Does this mean that theory is useless? You are looking for absolutes in a world of relativity. You will never find it. If qualia are to be considered real, how could we expect to have a complete understanding of them without the validation achieved with Proposition Beta? Understanding is not a absolute sort of thing and ALL. It is inherently and inescapably relative. Have I ever said that our understanding of consciousness will ever be absolutely complete? circles…. My grandma may have a fantastic imagination, but that won’t help her draw a schematic of how all of the components in her computer operate. Ultimately, science will demand a greater explanation than just imagination. You missed my point… In fact I went on to make your attempted counter point. There is not one single person that understands how every system within a 747 works, yet every detail of each system is understood by at least someone. The important part is that all of the dots line up—that there is no missing gaps. One person may not have an end-to-end understanding of every detail of a system, but there should not be any gaps missing in the collective understanding. Yes there will always be gaps in knowledge. The point is that the knowledge is functional. It is never absolute. I am simply not looking for absolute knowledge of anything so I think we are arguing at cross purposes. You are giving example after example of how knowledge must always contain holes and I agree with you and this is an important point to make, but it simply doesn’t mean that consciousness is absolutely mysterious. It is actually relatively well understood. For example, suppose we have never seen a tree before, but were given data for the geometry of a tree in the form of 10 billion data elements. Of course no normal human would be able to conceptualize the tree by looking through pages of this data. Using a computer, however, we could process the data to form a view of the tree from nearly an unlimited number of different perspectives. We should not be limited to one perspective if we have the raw data. Who is trying to limit perspectives? I don’t see how this ties in to our discussion. subtillioN: IMHO, reason has already formulated correct generalizations of how qualia actually work. The generalizations of reason will only get more and more accurate as time goes on. As far as I am concerned, we already have an 'understanding' of the mechanisms of qualia, we just can’t imagine all of the details.
What formulas? I said “generalizations” have been “formulated”. I didn’t say “formulas” have been “generated”. We have now entered the limits of semantic ambiguity. As for the generalizations, consult a detailed cognitive science book. I actually agree that we can develop some kind of understanding of how qualia are formed, based on imagination and intuition. However, unless you can provide a logical model for it--a formulation if you will--it remains a mysterious sort of understanding. Human intuition must connect the dots that our scientific data cannot fill. Ok, so ALL knowledge is relatively mysterious. I’ll go with that. The mind is a finite system confronting the infinite. It has inescapable limits. This has been a point of mine all along. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Freewill vs Determinism |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
The fact is that there is no split and there is an integral causal feedback between the mind and body. They are completely inseparable and together they form the self. It is the integrity and order of causality mixed with the control mechanisms of the mind that gives rise to freedom. I have to admit I am shocked to hear this is your point of view. It sounds like you are suggesting there is a freewill/determinism duality. In the passed you have expressed extreme nausea over concepts of duality. Do you agree with this statement: "there is no other way our decision could have happened any differently, given the specific state of the world the moment we were born"? If so, how can you possible support a notion of freewill without regarding it as an "illusion". What is it about freewill that you are compelled to hold on to? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill vs Determinism |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
subtillioN: The fact is that there is no split and there is an integral causal feedback between the mind and body. They are completely inseparable and together they form the self. It is the integrity and order of causality mixed with the control mechanisms of the mind that gives rise to freedom.
Wow, how did you get a duality from “They are completely inseparable”? In the passed you have expressed extreme nausea over concepts of duality. I don’t remember that. Maybe I was sickly drunk? Funny, I don’t remember getting drunk… well then I wouldn’t would I? =) Do you agree with this statement: "there is no other way our decision could have happened any differently, given the specific state of the world the moment we were born"? The question presupposes a concept that I disagree with--“pre-determinism”--therefore it is meaningless to me. I reject the question on the grounds of its faulty premise. It’s paradoxical conclusion is a result of the premise. Time is simply not a spatial/linear construct that can be played and replayed. Your question simply does not address reality. Asking the right questions of reality is the key to getting intelligible answers. What is it about freewill that you are compelled to hold on to? The fact that it obviously exists compels me to define it without the paradox that you are compelled to hold on to. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill vs Determinism |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Subtillion:
I said "generalizations" have been "formulated". I didn’t say "formulas" have been "generated". We have now entered the limits of semantic ambiguity.
The point I am trying to make is that the current theories about qualia are philosophical speculation, not scientific knowledge. What generalizations are you referring to? The theories of Crick? Edelman? Dennett? Penrose? Searle? Chalmers? Rosenfield? The problem is there is no general consensus. And there never will be until we have some kind of validation of the theory--like what would be obtained with Proposition Beta. Until then, these theories should not be classified as scientific knowledge. The mind is a finite system confronting the infinite. This needs additional explanation. I understood where you were coming from when we were talking about a complete theory of everything, but when confronting the mind, it does not make sense when taken by itself. Shouldn’t you say, "The mind is a finite system confronting a finite system"? What aspect of the mind is not finite? And does that aspect influence cognitive capabilities? If the cognitive capabilities are finite, how can knowledge be fundamentally mysterious? The question presupposes a concept that I disagree with--"pre-determinism"--therefore it is meaningless to me. I do not understand the difference between how you are using determinism and pre-determinism. What is the technical difference? Is it predictability? And if so, is the lack of predictability in a deterministic system simply due to practicality? What meaning does determinism have without predictability? I thought it was your objective to absolve any notions of uncertainty and indeterminism. That would mean that scientific experiments should be predictable, in principle. There might be a margin of error, but as long as our technical means of measurement improve, that error should diminish. As a system becomes more complex, it will be more difficult to predict an outcome. But the system should be predictable as long as there are enough resources to define the initial conditions and calculate the result (within a slight margin of error). Otherwise, are we not left with uncertainty again? Please help me understand. The differences are not clear to me. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill vs Determinism |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
You seem to agree with many of my points, but then you reach some different conclusions. I agree, and yet... =) The point I am trying to make is that the current theories about qualia are philosophical speculation, not scientific knowledge. Yes, but I think the boundaries between science and speculation are quite a bit blurrier then most of us would like to believe. Much of science *is* pure speculation and is probably in fact wrong. We still have workable and understandable models of it, however, and therefore we still *call* it science. For instance: What is the core of the earth made out of? Is it really hollow? How old is the Earth? What killed the dinosaurs? Did the universe have a beginning? Is it finite or infinite? What is matter? What is space? What is energy? What is light? What is the meaning of the wave/particle duality? What is an electron, proton or any other subatomic particle? Do quarks really exist? What is gravity? What is a ‘force’? What is ‘curved space’?… etc… All of these are just as speculative, if not more so, than the theories of ‘qualia’. What generalizations are you referring to? The theories of Crick? Edelman? Dennett? Penrose? Searle? Chalmers? Rosenfield? The problem is there is no general consensus. It has been quite a while since I have studied cognitive science and I don’t have any particular favorite models. I simply have a residual sense for how it basically works. I tend to gather the data from many sources and form my own conglomerate and then move on. subtillioN: The mind is a finite system confronting the infinite.
There are two important classifications to be made in order to understand my point (see Spinoza for the metaphysical details). 1.) The Universe, (i.e. substance, causality, reality etc.) is infinite, i.e. unlimited. 2.) The Modes (i.e. patterns, organizations, systems, structures, objects etc.) of infinite substance are finite i.e. limited (e.g. they have limits to their extension: surfaces etc.). The brain is a finite mode in direct, intimate contact with the infinite Universe. All patterns formed by the mind, including all structures, theories, logic, thoughts, etc. are modes of substance and are therefore finite. This does not mean that the limits are not indefinite, just that they are intrinsically limited in some respect. What aspect of the mind is not finite? And does that aspect influence cognitive capabilities? All aspects of the mind are finite. The mind is limited in spatial extent. Its senses are certainly limited. It has limited amount of attention or ‘bandwidth’, shall we say. Its inner dialog is linear and therefore quite limited. Etc. It has finite, but indefinite potential, however. If the cognitive capabilities are finite, how can knowledge be fundamentally mysterious? It is *absolute* knowledge that is unattainable and therefore fundamentally mysterious because no finite system can encompass the infinite. The relative knowledge that we can attain, however, is quite comprehensive so the mystery aspect is relatively and potentially insignificant. In fact most people don’t seem to know it even exists. subtillioN: The question presupposes a concept that I disagree with--"pre-determinism"--therefore it is meaningless to me.
The common notion of Time is that it is a linear ‘axis’, merely a ‘dimension’ added onto our familiar, mythical trinity. The present is seen as merely a ‘location’ on this axis as the present overtakes the future and renders it ‘history’. This spatial-linear concept predisposes us to assume that the future and the past actually exist in some tangible form other than as memory and anticipation in the present, thinking mind. It is from this erroneous predisposition that we ask the question of fate and whether you could change things if you could do it over again. In my view time is not an axis; it is not linear and it is not a ‘dimension’. Buckminster Fuller said that Time *is* dimension. It is inextricable from the nature of being/becoming. It is simply nonsense to view it as a spatial-linear trajectory or axis. It therefore makes no sense to ask whether you could change things if you could do it over again, because you simply cannot do it over again. It is like asking how fast you could fly if you had magic slippers. …is the lack of predictability in a deterministic system simply due to practicality? It is due to the fundamental difference between the finite modes and the infinite substance. What meaning does determinism have without predictability? Predictability is relative. Determinism is simply a word for an aspect of causality. To me it makes no sense, nor is it philosophically useful, to postulate that the Universe can lack causal connection or functional integrity. There is simply no way of understanding the meaning of a ‘causeless effect’ or an ‘effectless cause’. Causality, seen as a continuum is pure, non-reductionistic, holistic, integration and functional order. The universe is far too complicated to make mistakes or to ‘function’ on fuzzyness or non-connectedness. I thought it was your objective to absolve any notions of uncertainty and indeterminism. That would mean that scientific experiments should be predictable, in principle. There might be a margin of error, but as long as our technical means of measurement improve, that error should diminish. As I said, predictability is relative. Order, however, is readily apparent and ultimately inescapable. The limits of predictability in all its domains have steadily been pushed back and they will continue to do so as intelligence expands its capabilities. Predictability will always be part of a representational system so it will always be finite. There is no foreseeable way around this, unless somehow the mind could tap into the infinite which would seem to be a finite process itself and maybe that is exactly what mankind is doing through science, art and philosophy etc.. As a system becomes more complex, it will be more difficult to predict an outcome. But the system should be predictable as long as there are enough resources to define the initial conditions and calculate the result (within a slight margin of error). Otherwise, are we not left with uncertainty again? Uncertainty is a state of the finite mind. The universe doesn’t have one. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It is either a mind controlled world (religion/spiritualism/mysticism) or it is a body controlled world (reductionism/materialism/scientism). The fact is that there is no split and there is an integral causal feedback between the mind and body. The way I look at dualisms is that there are two components: that which creates, and that which is created. The first is free and creative. The second is structured and logical. Creative Structured ---------- ------------ Mind Body Time Space Freewill Determinism I guess that would put me squarely in the mind-controlled world. If it is a complete mystery then how do you know that it is not formulatable in principle. Throughout history the "mysteries" have fallen one by one to the march of scientific progress. What gives this mystery the ability to evade this historical pattern and how can you even answer this question if it is a complete mystery? It involves the recognition of the limitations of scientific knowledge, which is limited by logic and language. I believe there are deep philosophical concepts that have existed since Ancient Greece and Ancient India that will never be dissolved. Ideas like freewill vs. determinism and the mind-body problem are not going to go away because of scientific progress. I am not against scientific progress. I love science. I am a fan of artificial intelligence (the real kind, not the Spiritual Machines’ propositions). It is important, however, to be sure that philosophical ideas do not become diminished because of unfounded speculation in the fields of science and technology. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Sorce Theory and Autonomous Entities |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
I had another thought regarding consciousness and Sorce Theory I wanted to run by you. Sorce Theory seems heavily rooted in holism, continuity, etc and rejects the concepts of atomic and distinct. The problem is, our conscious experience is very much autonomous. My experience correlates directly with a single brain within this vast pool of matter.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Sorce Theory and Autonomous Entities |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Subtillion:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Here is a bizarre and rather loose allegory:
Your story of the house in the desert reminds me of a story I heard someone telling to a small "audience" in a pedestrian zone in Munich maybe 20 years ago. He said that the Apollo travels to the moon were fake TV events filmed in black-and-white (dual-chromatic) in the north american desert, and the only so-called evidence were the rocks they supposedly brought back, but those were, he said, obtained from a small meteorite that no one else knew about. He was very knowledgeable about history and could respond to any question in that direction with extensive detail. Needless to say, he was involved in an agenda big-time. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Your story of the house in the desert reminds me of a story I heard someone telling to a small "audience" in a pedestrian zone in Munich maybe 20 years ago. He said that the Apollo travels to the moon were fake TV events ...Needless to say, he was involved in an agenda big-time. That's nice, and yes, your insinuations are correct. I am involved in a vast (well maybe not so vast) conspiracy to overthrow the rooted programmed ignorance that we call "modern physics". |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
That's nice, and yes, your insinuations are correct. I am involved in a vast (well maybe not so vast) conspiracy to overthrow the rooted programmed ignorance that we call "modern physics". Uhh? So correspondingly, are you saying you actually imprisoned someone? Maybe by means of AI-controlled nanotechnology in his brain? |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Uhh? So correspondingly, are you saying you actually imprisoned someone? Maybe by means of AI-controlled nanotechnology in his brain? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There's no slipping anything by you! ;-) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
It may take a highly developed science to produce an accurate mathematical model for a complex objective system, but we can produce a simplistic model of an objective system quite easily. As our scientific understanding increases, the more accurate and less simple our models become.
Decent simplistic models are only applicable to relatively simple systems. Even the simple many-body problem suffers intolerable errors when extrapolated over relatively short intervals. Strangely you are both over-estimating and under-estimating the power of mathematics. You hold mathematics up to some unacheivable simplistic ideal that doesn't work the way you expect wrt the vast complexity of consciousness and when you see that the simple models are non-existent you claim that ALL models are therefore impossible. The problem is that with complex systems such as consciousness it is the simple models which are the most difficult to produce. Such a reduction reduces the complexity which is required for the phenomenon to exist. The simple models require a highly efficient understanding of the problem so as to extract only the salient details. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Could you give a short description of weak emergence vs. strong emergence? Strong emergence is a system where the emergent property cannot be explained by all of its parts (it is non-reductionistic). Weak emergence simply states that a system is reducible in principle, but the complexity of the system is so great that we can never conceptualize how the emergence occurs. The only way to actualize the emergent property is through simulation. It is also called epistemic emergence because a property seems to emerge simply because we cannot grasp the overall complexity. Weak emergence is becoming a popular theory for those that believe reductionism is ultimately the solution to consciousness and the creation of life. It is largely a reaction to the idea that it is not possible for one person to completely and accurately articulate a conscious experience using any sort of language. It basically says that the inability to articulate the experience in language is due to limitations in human comprehension. My original argument is that weak-emergence can never be classified as a scientific theory because it can never be verified. It should therefore, not be promoted as a scientific theory. You might also be interested in my homepage ( http://www.occean.com ) Yes I have seen it, and I pretty much agree with it. I believe it articulates solid arguments against both functionalism and reductionism. In particular I find the sensation of color to be an excellent means to illustrate your points. For me, there are two subjects that have really torn me away from materialism and towards mysticism. The first was consciousness, and the second was freewill. Among other things, we discussed quantifiability, verifiability, [Paul Davies'] holism, physical events being causally closed (or not), Daniel Dennett's materialism, the reality of conscious experience, "physical" vs. "mathematically describable", and related points.
Absolutely! I am very interested in those topics. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Leodegan,
Strong emergence is a system where the emergent property cannot be explained by all of its parts (it is non-reductionistic).
Leodegan, I would be interested to better understand the thinking behind weak and strong emergence. How do they relate to epiphenomenalism, if they do? You mentioned simulation. Does simulation play an important role in this theory? How is "weak emergence" different from simply saying "and then something magical happens", if it is really different from saying that? One of the difficulties with the concept of weak emergence, it seems to me, must be that it assumes that the only thing needing explanation is that something incomprehensibly complex happens. However, for conscious experience, what really needs explanation is that not only (complex) things happen, but that they are also experienced by someone. Any theory which only describes what happens, fails to address that what happens is also (consciously) experienced. At least, that is how it looks to me. One could hope that what happens is independent of the fact that it is experienced, however our ability to verbalize the fact that we experience (the fact that we are conscious) refutes this hope: what happens (at least partly) depends on our consciousness. Greetings, Blue |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Re: Complexity is Doomed to be Unresolved 2 |
[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] |
|
|
Weak emergence is dependent on materialism. I suppose epiphenomenalism could be compatible with strong emergence.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|