U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-28-2013, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,120,055 times
Reputation: 1638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Well,
(a) ...whether it is valid to argue that the hard question is a question and not an answer - that is, it does not present any evidence, but a theory which requires validation. There seems to be an idea that a philosophical construct or model applied to unknowns can prove something and I don't believe that it can. It can (and has) raised questions but that doesn't do anything much to overturn naturalistic materialism as the default (which needs to be disproved, rather than proved)...
I would say that one major significance of the hard problem is that it outlines some important limits of current physical theories. This is not an attack on naturalism. Newtonian physics wasn’t “wrong” exactly, it was simply limited in its applicability. Relativity and Quantum theories expanded these limits, but I would argue that they, too, have their limits. Some of the limits on current theory are easily acknowledged from within the current paradigm. The need to reconcile relativity and QM is an example of a limit that can probably be overcome without leaving the materialist paradigm. The limits implied by the hard problem, however, seem to be a different story. For the most part, these limits are not even on the radar for those who are firmly planted in the materialist paradigm – largely because of the conceptual disconnect that I mentioned earlier. IF it turns out that qualia play no role in the evolution of physical states (either because the qualiaphobes are correct, or because qualia are mere “epiphenomena” – as Chalmers suggests), then physicists will never have to face the hard problem. Philosophers will probably keep puzzling over it, but physicists could just ignore it.

Personally, I think that we won’t be able to keep ignoring it, but here is where you need me to give you a theory that I cannot give you. You and KC are right in pointing out that I don’t have a positive theory to offer. (Actually, I will try to offer some sketches of a positive theory later, in another post.) I see a “gap” in our theoretical knowledge that, I suspect, we will eventually need to address, but I can’t prove, at the moment, that physics will ever need to address it.

Part of the problem might be this: In order to see the gap as a gap, you need to already be standing outside of the materialist paradigm. If that is true, then I can’t use the gap itself as a tool for dragging you out of the materialist paradigm. I would need to find some other way to drag you out of the paradigm long enough to see the gap. But what other way? I don’t know. As I will discuss in a future post, I think that physics will eventually bump into the problem, and then there will be a tool within the paradigm that can expose the weakness in the paradigm. In the meantime I will keep fishing around for another way to explain things.

Of course it could be that I am the crazy one here. I might be hallucinating a gap that is just not really there at all. In which case I am hoping that one of you can find some way to shake me out of my delusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2013, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,120,055 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
...
(b) The reason why is because of what we already know and we know that materialism accounts for processes right down the levels where we lose sight of it. Why should we then be persuaded that something else takes over? Why should the default (and the burden of proof) suddenly change? ...
If I am right, then materialism loses sight of certain important empirical processes right from the start. Or, to put it another way, it’s not so much that materialism “loses sight” of a process so much as it never even got the processes into sight in the first place. We are immersed in empirically important processes that never even show up on materialist radar screens. I’m still at a loss as to how to best explain this, but I wanna try this:

Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you are in a room with two people (say, Andy and Zeb), and you believe with absolute certainty that Zeb is a zombie. (Maybe you have been hypnotized to believe this? Whatever. The point is that you believe this with full conviction.) Now you are presented with a choice: You must chop off someone’s finger – either Andy or Zeb - and there is no anesthesia or pain-killers available. Whose finger do you chop off? And why? Speaking for myself, there would be no question. I would choose Zeb. Why? Because I know that Zeb will not actually feel any pain. He will scream and cuss like a sonnabitch and he will display rage as he vows to kill me, but since I believe that he is a zombie, I believe that all of this behavior is simply that – a bunch of behavior. Zeb is nothing but a collection of atoms behaving in a certain way. Zeb feels no actual pain or anger. (Of course I would be well-advised to sleep with a gun under my pillow because even though Zeb feels no actual anger, he will continue to act as if he feels anger, so I have to watch out for him.)

Even if Zeb is biological, he is truly and deeply nothing more than a machine in the classical sense – just a bunch of material processes following the laws of physics. Rationally, I should not even feel sorry for him. (In reality I happen to know that I would feel sorry for him, despite my conviction that he is a zombie, but in some sense these feelings would be “beyond reason,” given my beliefs.)

Now one question is: How does materialism account for my choice of Zeb? Materialism can only account for my choice by assuming that I am a zombie too. Actual feelings of pain, anger, etc., cannot enter in to the materialist explanation of my behavior, or Zeb’s behavior. Materialism cannot even make the distinction between a zombie and a genuinely sentient being. Some people are comfortable with this. I am not. As I see it, the feeling of pain is the truly ultimate reason for the pain-behavior. Yes, it is correlated with physical atoms following laws of physics, but I see the physical processes as a material expression of the feeling of pain, not pain as a mere epiphenomenal correlate of the physical process. And if the feeling of pain is the true cause of a physical body’s behavior, then physics is not giving us the full story when it explains the behavior without any way to reference the actual feeling of pain. In other words, a genuine physical cause is flying under the materialist radar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 10:41 AM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I would say that one major significance of the hard problem is that it outlines some important limits of current physical theories. This is not an attack on naturalism. Newtonian physics wasn’t “wrong” exactly, it was simply limited in its applicability. Relativity and Quantum theories expanded these limits, but I would argue that they, too, have their limits. Some of the limits on current theory are easily acknowledged from within the current paradigm. The need to reconcile relativity and QM is an example of a limit that can probably be overcome without leaving the materialist paradigm. The limits implied by the hard problem, however, seem to be a different story. For the most part, these limits are not even on the radar for those who are firmly planted in the materialist paradigm – largely because of the conceptual disconnect that I mentioned earlier. IF it turns out that qualia play no role in the evolution of physical states (either because the qualiaphobes are correct, or because qualia are mere “epiphenomena” – as Chalmers suggests), then physicists will never have to face the hard problem. Philosophers will probably keep puzzling over it, but physicists could just ignore it.

Personally, I think that we won’t be able to keep ignoring it, but here is where you need me to give you a theory that I cannot give you. You and KC are right in pointing out that I don’t have a positive theory to offer. (Actually, I will try to offer some sketches of a positive theory later, in another post.) I see a “gap” in our theoretical knowledge that, I suspect, we will eventually need to address, but I can’t prove, at the moment, that physics will ever need to address it.

Part of the problem might be this: In order to see the gap as a gap, you need to already be standing outside of the materialist paradigm. If that is true, then I can’t use the gap itself as a tool for dragging you out of the materialist paradigm. I would need to find some other way to drag you out of the paradigm long enough to see the gap. But what other way? I don’t know. As I will discuss in a future post, I think that physics will eventually bump into the problem, and then there will be a tool within the paradigm that can expose the weakness in the paradigm. In the meantime I will keep fishing around for another way to explain things.

Of course it could be that I am the crazy one here. I might be hallucinating a gap that is just not really there at all. In which case I am hoping that one of you can find some way to shake me out of my delusion.
Thank you. I of course can't offer a theory to counter the problem raised by Qualia - though (perhaps like you) I could put together a suggestion of information -increase from quark to Qualia rather as a scenario can be put together as a mechanism for abiogenesis, though there is no hard evidence. Asking questions is not a delusion, but it is hypothesis and that is wonderful, so long as hypothesis is not presented as a fact and the previous mechanism (with its demonstrated facts) is supposed to be binned and replaced with a question.

Now, I can give a long explanation as to why I would reason that someone who I was convinced would not feel pain would be the logical choice over someone who I was convinced would, but I strongly suspect that isn't the point,but the nature of perception of sensation is. And indeed I can see the difference between the sensation of pain and our recognition of it in others and the idea of something that doesn't have it but acts in all respects as though it did. Of course our hypnotized conviction that one was a zombie is a complication as (to be realistic) neither would be and I would simply be acting under a delusion.

Let me try to give my example. suppose we had a masterpiece by Van Gogh or Van Eyk if you prefer. suppose we then had a duplicator that reproduced it exactly. What is the difference? Well, the atoms are different atoms..but in fact I suspect that the atoms in the original get changed too. But whether or not, what is 'gap' between the original and the copy? Well, now I have done it, I wonder what the hell that proves.

Only I suppose that we can perceive gaps or 'something more' that exist only in our perception. I have no trouble in supposing that our evolution from moving particles through biochemicals to cells and then through creatures that naturally adopt a survival mode (or they cease to exist) through increased sophistication, problem - solving and, in humans, reasoning and choices about morals, though as the zombie example shows, hypnotizing or other delusions can mess with that.

In that sense I don't see a problem. Materialism can at least have a framework and the details can be filled in later. Rather as with evolution and quantum. Remaining questions are no cause to junk 'reality' on the materialistic concept-scenario. The matter of consciousness in nerves and synapses and motor -neurons was raised (on previous threads) and, of course, if one goes down far enough, we get to unknowns. Is that reason to suppose that the cosmos consists of a consciousness which supplies what materialism can't (though I would risk a large bet that it eventually can) when this other thing seems to have nothing going for it but a 'gap' which is well enough, so long as it doesn't become a 'gap for God'.

Now even I can see that is pretty incoherent, but I hope at least you can sense my bewilderment about questions that are interesting and perhaps even significant but hardly strike me a valid reason to toss the materialist- naturalist default in the bin.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-28-2013 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 12:39 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Well,
(a) [to avoidconfusion wit fopnotes ] whether it is valid to argue that the hard question is a question and not an answer - that is, it does not present any evidence, but a theory which requires validation. There seems to be an idea that a philosophical construct or model applied to unknowns can prove something and I don't believe that it can. It can (and has) raised questions but that doesn't do anything much to overturn naturalistic materialism as the default (which needs to be disproved, rather than proved) as a preferred expectation, shall we say, rather as the expectation is that some kinds of evolution -process will have originated abiogenesis and that quantum and classical physics will be reconciled in a unified theory, not that some forward -planning cosmic consciousness waved a magic wand.
(b) The reason why is because of what we already know and we know that materialism accounts for processes right down the levels where we lose sight of it. Why should we then be persuaded that something else takes over? Why should the default (and the burden of proof) suddenly change?
This is what I am asking you.
(c) As to incomprehension, I do find difficulty in seeing anything other than a sort of Dipak Chophra gooble in this stuff about qualia. However, I am placing some considerable trust in the logical thought of philosophers such as Chalmers and yourself, Gaylen, and indeed Alan Turing, who started the whole thing with his 'Chinese room' model.
As I (and you) say, the subject itself is more appropriate to the philosophy section, but would you agree that the implications for atheism make the discussion appropriate to this section and indeed,thread.
Those are the three points that I would ask of you and which I haven't yet identified a clear answer.
Gaylen is doing an excellent job of addressing the concerns expressed here. But I detect a major stumbling block producing confusion. The confusion here seems to surround the notion of default itself. Any default must be taken as "brute fact" . . . it must be accepted as unquestioned. Materialism does NOT make the grade BECAUSE of qualia. The one absolute truth we ALL experience directly is qualia ( that makes it the most ubiquitous "fact" of our reality) . . . and materialism does NOT account for it. That is why it can NOT be the default. At the very least, it cannot be the basis for the kind of arrogant certainty materialists possess in demanding "evidence." If they completely ignore the most ubiquitous evidence in our reality to establish their preferred default . . . of what value is evidence in such hypocrisy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,120,055 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
As I (and you) say, the subject itself is more appropriate to the philosophy section, but would you agree that the implications for atheism make the discussion appropriate to this section and indeed,thread.
I'm perfectly happy to discuss this here as long as other people want to discuss it here. I just want to insist that it is perfectly possible to be a qualiaphilic atheist. Having said this, however, I will admit that acknowledging the hard problem does make it easier for theism to slip in through the opened door. In fact, I suspect that some folks would call me a theist, even though I don't buy into the notion of intelligent design (I'm more than agnostic here; I believe with a fairly high feeling of confidence that the world was not designed at all, let alone designed by an intelligence, let alone designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good, loving sort of intelligence.)


I will also admit that I believe in free will, and on the theory I am developing, qualia can provide the metaphysical ground for free will. I suspect that if I'm wrong about qualia, and if materialism is the ultimate metaphysical truth of reality, then there is no metaphysical room whatsoever for free will. (At least none that I can see.) "Compatiblists" have a definition of free will that allows free will to be compatible with determinism, but on their definition, free will is really just a delusional feeling. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to believe in free will, but here again it serves as a good place for theism to get a toe hold. (And, BTW, I'm more confident in qualia than I am in free will. I see at least one deeply disturbing possible flaw in my concept of free will, but I see nothing shaky in my concept of qualia, apart from a hint of queasiness that accompanies my puzzlement over why I seem unable to explain the importance of qualia to certain people.)

And, just for the record: If quantum theory can be accepted as naturalistic, then qualia and free will can, in principle, be naturalistic too. I see no need for anything to operate "outside" the laws of nature, and I suspect that all of the laws of nature can, to some extent, be modeled by some more highly evolved form of physics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 03:01 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I'm perfectly happy to discuss this here as long as other people want to discuss it here. I just want to insist that it is perfectly possible to be a qualiaphilic atheist. Having said this, however, I will admit that acknowledging the hard problem does make it easier for theism to slip in through the opened door. In fact, I suspect that some folks would call me a theist, even though I don't buy into the notion of intelligent design (I'm more than agnostic here; I believe with a fairly high feeling of confidence that the world was not designed at all, let alone designed by an intelligence, let alone designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good, loving sort of intelligence.)
Oddly enough, I agree with you, Gaylen . . . though I am sure that surprises you. There is no evidence for nor any reason to credit the existence of "all-knowingness, or all-powerfulness, or all-goodness, or all-lovingness." They are concepts that resonate with many and that merits note . . . but they are without existential support. It also is not necessary that our reality be purposely designed to BE designed. Existence and life mandate design without regard to Will or conscious plan . . . but given OUR possession of such attributes . . . we can NOT preclude the existence of consciousness or Will or a plan, either.
Quote:
I will also admit that I believe in free will, and on the theory I am developing, qualia can provide the metaphysical ground for free will. I suspect that if I'm wrong about qualia, and if materialism is the ultimate metaphysical truth of reality, then there is no metaphysical room whatsoever for free will. (At least none that I can see.) "Compatiblists" have a definition of free will that allows free will to be compatible with determinism, but on their definition, free will is really just a delusional feeling. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to believe in free will, but here again it serves as a good place for theism to get a toe hold. (And, BTW, I'm more confident in qualia than I am in free will. I see at least one deeply disturbing possible flaw in my concept of free will, but I see nothing shaky in my concept of qualia, apart from a hint of queasiness that accompanies my puzzlement over why I seem unable to explain the importance of qualia to certain people.)
I am much more confident after your excellent efforts that the problem does indeed NOT reside in our communications . . . but in the receivers, Gaylen.
Quote:
And, just for the record: If quantum theory can be accepted as naturalistic, then qualia and free will can, in principle, be naturalistic too. I see no need for anything to operate "outside" the laws of nature, and I suspect that all of the laws of nature can, to some extent, be modeled by some more highly evolved form of physics.
Again we are in complete agreement. There is no such thing as supernatural or anything BUT natural . . . just what we do not currently understand. (That in no way means or supports materialism as a default.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 03:30 PM
 
39,242 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I'm perfectly happy to discuss this here as long as other people want to discuss it here. I just want to insist that it is perfectly possible to be a qualiaphilic atheist. Having said this, however, I will admit that acknowledging the hard problem does make it easier for theism to slip in through the opened door. In fact, I suspect that some folks would call me a theist, even though I don't buy into the notion of intelligent design (I'm more than agnostic here; I believe with a fairly high feeling of confidence that the world was not designed at all, let alone designed by an intelligence, let alone designed by an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good, loving sort of intelligence.)

I will also admit that I believe in free will, and on the theory I am developing, qualia can provide the metaphysical ground for free will. I suspect that if I'm wrong about qualia, and if materialism is the ultimate metaphysical truth of reality, then there is no metaphysical room whatsoever for free will. (At least none that I can see.) "Compatiblists" have a definition of free will that allows free will to be compatible with determinism, but on their definition, free will is really just a delusional feeling. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to believe in free will, but here again it serves as a good place for theism to get a toe hold. (And, BTW, I'm more confident in qualia than I am in free will. I see at least one deeply disturbing possible flaw in my concept of free will, but I see nothing shaky in my concept of qualia, apart from a hint of queasiness that accompanies my puzzlement over why I seem unable to explain the importance of qualia to certain people.)

And, just for the record: If quantum theory can be accepted as naturalistic, then qualia and free will can, in principle, be naturalistic too. I see no need for anything to operate "outside" the laws of nature, and I suspect that all of the laws of nature can, to some extent, be modeled by some more highly evolved form of physics.
Thank you for your patience and especially for understanding what I was getting at. I agree that qualia can and evidently does leave room for 'free will' as we call it the distinction being that we have the feeling of choice even if we have to conclude that there is nothing random or uncaused about it. There are always reasons down to sub atomic level, even if we don't know about them. That's another matter, however. Or maybe not, because the implication is that naturalistic materialism still has room for the illusion that we call Free will because we almost unconsciously collate a myriad of factors that informs our decision. There need be nothing that comes out of no-where.

As to being a qualiaphilic atheist, that depends on what the theism looks like. I don't in principle mind the Mystic god - I am objecting to overdrawing the case to get God on the table, not objecting to the case itself because it looks like it is being used in that way. I won't dwell on that other than to say that I do not buy the argument that materialism is removed from being the default simply because there is something it doesn't explain.

Let me just assure you that the fault is not with you nor indeed with 'certain people' having some closed mind resistance to qualia. I at least accept the validity of the case or at least the question being asked and indeed the implication. Only that it is too early to start overturning defaults on the basis of unanswered questions. I swear to you that I really find it hard to grasp why the question of perception is producing a philosophical problem that is regarded as threatening to overturn our present preferred view that it works with what we know, even if we can't say how down to the last nanoparticle.

Your explanation was fine, but perhaps my attempt to say why I couldn't see the zombie example as other than a gap that wasn't a gap - like the difference between a painting and an exact duplicate.

More on topic is perhaps why atheism, taking a lack of evidence for a god as part of materialistic naturalism theory (because there is no reason I can see to postulate a forward -planning mind without which we have nature,not God) is the logical reasoning view and qualia has not as yet unseated that,let alone put 'God'on the map. That is the defence of the logic in response to that challenge at least and not because I don't want it to be true but because it is as yet no more than an unanswered question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 07:48 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Thank you for your patience and especially for understanding what I was getting at. I agree that qualia can and evidently does leave room for 'free will' as we call it the distinction being that we have the feeling of choice even if we have to conclude that there is nothing random or uncaused about it. There are always reasons down to sub atomic level, even if we don't know about them. That's another matter, however. Or maybe not, because the implication is that naturalistic materialism still has room for the illusion that we call Free will because we almost unconsciously collate a myriad of factors that informs our decision. There need be nothing that comes out of no-where.

As to being a qualiaphilic atheist, that depends on what the theism looks like. I don't in principle mind the Mystic god - I am objecting to overdrawing the case to get God on the table, not objecting to the case itself because it looks like it is being used in that way. I won't dwell on that other than to say that I do not buy the argument that materialism is removed from being the default simply because there is something it doesn't explain.
Let me just assure you that the fault is not with you nor indeed with 'certain people' having some closed mind resistance to qualia. I at least accept the validity of the case or at least the question being asked and indeed the implication. Only that it is too early to start overturning defaults on the basis of unanswered questions. I swear to you that I really find it hard to grasp why the question of perception is producing a philosophical problem that is regarded as threatening to overturn our present preferred view that it works with what we know, even if we can't say how down to the last nanoparticle.
It isn't that there is something it doesn't explain, Arequipa . . . it is that it cannot support its basic premise which MUST be an unquestioned "brute fact." THAT is why it cannot be the default. There cannot EXIST anything that calls the basic premise (default) into question . . . and the existence of qualia and consciousness do exactly that. Clearly there is no issue with materialism as an established and identifiable aspect of reality . . . but it can NOT be the default position that needs no proof. The undeniable evidence and ubiquity of qualia and consciousness refute it. It is inadequate to support your atheist demand that it be accepted a priori . . . and then demand proof of anything that suggests it is NOT the state of reality.
Quote:
Your explanation was fine, but perhaps my attempt to say why I couldn't see the zombie example as other than a gap that wasn't a gap - like the difference between a painting and an exact duplicate.
More on topic is perhaps why atheism, taking a lack of evidence for a god as part of materialistic naturalism theory (because there is no reason I can see to postulate a forward -planning mind without which we have nature,not God) is the logical reasoning view and qualia has not as yet unseated that,let alone put 'God'on the map. That is the defence of the logic in response to that challenge at least and not because I don't want it to be true but because it is as yet no more than an unanswered question.
It doesn't have to be an either/or, Arequipa. Our reality doesn't have to be the result of a conscious forward-planning willful plan . . . to be the result of the existence of a God who is conscious and alive. Existence and life automatically establish mandates intrinsic to them that drive the processes of life and existence. I repeat . . . use our own existence as conscious, willful, forward-planning beings. The mandates placed upon the lives of our cells and the myriad biota that comprise us do not result from any conscious, forward-planning willful plan on our part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2013, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,424 posts, read 2,120,055 times
Reputation: 1638
Quote:
Think of it this way: Suppose that X exists now (let's call this "State 2", but it did not exist a moment ago (let's call this "State 1"). Doesn't it make sense to assume that State 1 had, within its essence, the potential for X, even though X, as such, did not exist yet? Now, as we know, physics is all about describing matter/energy states in such a way that we can model the transitions from one state to another. To have a good model means to have a model that allows us to predict State 2, given our description of State 1. Now, how can our model predict the emergence of X from State 1 if there are absolutely no elements in the model that provide any possibility of X?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
I don't know. What is it again that precludes the possibility of X from which approach to whatever problem this is.
I think this might be one of my best explanations for the inadequacy of materialism, but I can also see that it is hard to follow, so maybe this is worth a second shot. I'm working with a basic logical concept that I hope is not controversial. Here it is: Actuality logically implies potentiality. If some entity, X, actually exists, then reality must be such that the potential for X is "built in" to the nature of reality. Stars did not always actually exist in our universe, but prior to the existence of stars, the must have been some logical potential for stars. Physics can model the early universe in such a way that the potential for the existence of stars is inherent in the model. Then, by "running" the model, we can "watch the emergence of stars," so to speak. We can watch the emergence within our model because our model somehow captures the potential for stars within its framework. In fact, this is the primary way in which we know that our model is a good model. We know that stars actually exist, so if our model failed to predict the emergence of stars from the conditions of the early universe, we would know that our model was, at best, incomplete.

So my logic is really rather simple: Qualia actually exist, therefore, the potential for qualia logically MUST be built in to the fundamental fabric of reality. Any model of reality that is supposed to be complete must, therefore, include some conceptual hooks for the emergence of qualia. Materialism has no such hooks.

And qualia are not a trivial oversight. Qualia are the only things that we can know for certain exist. If we were radical skeptics, we might doubt the existence of stars. We might wonder if somehow we were all victims of a mass hallucination regarding the existence of stars. We cannot doubt the existence of qualia in this way because to hallucinate the existence of qualia is already to confirm, without a doubt, the existence of qualia. But qualia play no formal role whatsoever in physics. (Informally - "behind the scenes," so to speak, qualia are the essence of empirical observation, so obviously qualia do play a central role in physics, but formally, qualia play no role at all.) Nothing in the models of physics imply the emergence of sentient awareness. Given enough detailed work, we might be able to model the emergence of life, and eventually the emergence of intelligent organisms, but these organisms can only be zombies. They might act like they are in pain, but within the models of physics there is absolutely nothing to suggest the emergence of the actual qualitative feelings of pain. If you don't believe me, ask a physicist. There is nothing in any current model of physics that can in any way, shape, or form predict the emergence of qualia from the 4 fundamental forces of physics. And these 4 forces are currently all that we have to work with. If this model is complete, then there should be nothing that cannot, at least in principle, be shown to emerge from some intricate interplay of these 4 forces. All of chemistry comes from these forces, and all of biology comes from chemistry. Complex behaviors can emerge, but qualia cannot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2013, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Athens, Greece
526 posts, read 580,473 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
I think this might be one of my best explanations for the inadequacy of materialism, but I can also see that it is hard to follow, so maybe this is worth a second shot. I'm working with a basic logical concept that I hope is not controversial. Here it is: Actuality logically implies potentiality. If some entity, X, actually exists, then reality must be such that the potential for X is "built in" to the nature of reality.
I enjoyed reading your post. Your logical concept I approve and I am going to use it my self in supporting my own theories.
You have a way with language but, as usually, there is beauty in the philosophical arguments but no essence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
So my logic is really rather simple: Qualia actually exist, therefore, the potential for qualia logically MUST be built in to the fundamental fabric of reality. Any model of reality that is supposed to be complete must, therefore, include some conceptual hooks for the emergence of qualia. Materialism has no such hooks.
Matter does have the hooks required but science is still in its infancy. You said that “There is nothing in any current model of physics that can in any way, shape, or form predict the emergence of qualia from the 4 fundamental forces of physics.”
You’ll have to wait for the future models of physics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top