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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
The central point is this: In purely objective terms, the switch makes no difference to the natural evolution of physical states in either world. If there is any significant difference caused by the switch, this difference can only be understood by subjective beings who understand the subjective difference of "being P1" vs. "being P2". But notice that even this subjective difference is a "difference that makes no difference" within the worlds until the alien invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yep, notice than an objective event caused the difference here. There would be lots of objective evidence of an alien invasion. That would have obvious implications on the brain states of the people in the world being invaded.
We are in 100% agreement here. Yes, it is an objective event that causes the subjective differences for whoever lives in W2. (In fact, that is exactly WHY I introduced the alien invasion into the story - I needed an objective change between the worlds in order to cause subjective differences between the worlds.) Notice that I am not denying correlations between subjective states and objective states. I'm focusing on the reason why we need to talk about "subjective" and "objective" in the first place. If subjective experiences are 100% correlated with objective processes, then why do we need to talk about "subjective" experience at all?
Again I emphasize: I am NOT denying that there is 100% correlation. Subjectivity is our way of talking about what it is like to BE a process. For X to be Y, there can be no property of X that is not also a property of Y (which is another way of saying that X and Y are 100% correlated). Objectivity and subjectivity are NOT indications of substance dualism. We both reject substance dualism. I'm arguing for a dual aspect theory. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there is something that it is like to BE certain kinds of physical processes. I'm also arguing that this potential for this subjective "what-it-is-like-to-be" aspect of reality is fundamental. Why fundamental? Why can subjectivity be derived from the purely objective terms of physics as we currently understand them? THAT is what I trying to explain with the thought experiment. (I'm NOT refuting materialism; I'm NOT defending substance dualism; I AM trying to explain why subjectivity and objectivity are fundamental dual aspects of Reality.)
The history of W2 diverges from the history of W1, thus the experiences of P1 (who started out in W1, but now lives in W2) diverges from the experiences of P2. But you need to step back and think about the overall system of W1+W2. Let's just call this total system "W". The overall system, W, does not change on account of the switch. In terms of purely objective facts, W is the same whether or not the switch occurs. There are no observable differences in the evolution of physical states that can be attributed to the switch. Objectively, it makes no difference whatsoever if P1 suffers, or if it is P2 who suffers. And, of course, P1 and P2 don't know about the switch, so P1 is not upset about the fact that the switch caused him to endure 10 years of suffering. He hates the suffering, but he does not hate the switch because he does not know about the switch. As subjective beings who understand how P1's future changed, we can understand the change in P1's fate, but in purely objective terms, the combined system W (with W1 going one way and W2 going another) is unchanged by the switch. The switch causes no change in the evolution of W1, or any change in the evolution of W2. In math terms: If (W1+W2)=W then (W1+0) + (W2+0) = W. In purely objective terms, the switches do not effect the evolution of either world, yet as subjective beings we know that the fate of P1 changed radically, even if P1 himself doesn't realize that his future was altered.
I can understand this idea of 'what it like to be...?' but that mind experiment seems to miss.
The subjectivity is within the P1 or P2 person and with a difference that makes difference, there is no difference. The only way this mind experiment has any relevance is because an outside observer knows what the difference is. Provenance in fact.
From their point of view the difference is objective, in terms of known fact. Subjectivity isn't an issue here.
Sure they would. Up until the point W1 and W2 diverged, they'd have identical subjective experiences. After the worlds changed, they'd have different ones due to the change in environment.
That's false. We have lots of objective evidence for feelings in certain types of animals.
You completely missed the point of the thought experiment. The point of the thought experiment is to eliminate the existence in P1 and P2 of ANYTHING subjective. It is a purely objective reality as you believe it to be. The subjective aspects we take for granted by BEING subjective creatures are the focus of the exercise. Gaylen seeks to address the idea that it is an illusion by seeking an atomistic material essence that can be aggregated to allow the emergence of our subjectivity (experiencing what it is like to BE whatever purely objective process is involved). I am certain he will not succeed because the experiencing of BEING is inherent in reality . . . i.e., reality is infinitely BEING and BECOMING and we are part of it.
Well, that's where I don't follow the argument. We are subjective-minded beings since we have ideas, interpretations and conclusions from within us, so to speak. I used the analogy of a pilot flying on instruments or a radar operating seeing representations of what's going on outside. It takes science to correct some of the mistakes we make.
But there is no reason to suppose that there is a 'subjectivity' about how our mind does this interpretation. When everything gets transferred from P1 to P2, P2 becomes just as objective from our point of view as P1. The observer would know the difference, but that would be objective too.
This means that subjectivity is linked entirely to our physical body and mind and there is no reason to suppose anything else.
Its another Quaila you don't understand trap....with countless idea's available saying NO...you don't understand what I mean, this is what I mean.
Its another Zombie idea...first there are two worlds and then it is only one world for the zombie style sketch.. theres no end to the garble in avoiding what man already knows. Plus the switch is irrational and has no bearing because they are identical worlds. Switch them 20 or thirty times before the aliens come....then what...no difference both worlds are identical and produced the exact same person.. The switch is the slight of hand...there is no switch which is relative by story definition...there would be arguments for everything in the U don't understand category why, because its pick and choose in the zombie styled idea.... including yes you do understand and this here is what I'm getting at . Things need evidence of some kind today, a product is required, thats how it works.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-26-2013 at 06:59 PM..
Well, that's where I don't follow the argument. We are subjective-minded beings since we have ideas, interpretations and conclusions from within us, so to speak.
That is the point. How to account for our subjectivity by purely objective processes, It is the pronoun you use that has no explanation using purely objective processes. There is nothing in the purely objective processes that can explain the emergence of our subjectivity . . . or identity . . . the pronouns we use when describing what it is like to BE the processes and experience them.
Quote:
Just what am I not getting here?
I am at a loss how to help you see the issue . . . since you are so firmly entrenched BEING subjective about the entire exercise. It really has nothing to do with our physical body, per se. It is what the purely objective processes within our body produce that cannot currently be explained by those purely objective processes unless they are somehow inherently subjective . . . as I believe . . . or carry somewhere within the material processes the potential for subjectivity . . . as Gaylen seeks to find. Currently there is no "subjectivity particle" (analogous to the Higgs vis-a-vis Mass) that can be aggregated to give purely objective material matter subjectivity.
That is the point. How to account for our subjectivity by purely objective processes, It is the pronoun you use that has no explanation using purely objective processes. There is nothing in the purely objective processes that can explain the emergence of our subjectivity . . . or identity . . . the pronouns we use when describing what it is like to BE the processes and experience them.I am at a loss how to help you see the issue . . . since you are so firmly entrenched BEING subjective about the entire exercise. It really has nothing to do with our physical body, per se. It is what the purely objective processes within our body produce that cannot currently be explained by those purely objective processes unless they are somehow inherently subjective . . . as I believe . . . or carry somewhere within the material processes the potential for subjectivity . . . as Gaylen seeks to find. Currently there is no "subjectivity particle" (analogous to the Higgs vis-a-vis Mass) that can be aggregated to give purely objective material matter subjectivity.
There is no point...looking for the rolling car with the whole car and factory in a zillion parts on the scientists table makes no sense . It needs to be put together otherwise there would be nothing organizational or constructive...
if there was nothing constructive about creation we would not be able to make constructive idea's out of many parts.
So this is a construction issue that is trying to find organization with only one word or part on the table, for a found secret which is inconsistent with the world itself. Thats why all the zombie idea's are required.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-27-2013 at 01:59 AM..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Why can subjectivity be derived from the purely objective terms of physics as we currently understand them?
Sorry, I just noticed a typo. This should say:Why can't subjectivity be derived from the purely objective terms of physics as we currently understand them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
But there is no reason to suppose that there is a 'subjectivity' about how our mind does this interpretation. When everything gets transferred from P1 to P2, P2 becomes just as objective from our point of view as P1. The observer would know the difference, but that would be objective too.
This means that subjectivity is linked entirely to our physical body and mind and there is no reason to suppose anything else.
Just what am I not getting here?
Unfortunately, I don't understand what you are saying here, so I don't know how to answer your question. I think what you are missing is the whole reason that we need to use the term 'subjectivity' in the first place. What is this thing that is "linked entirely to our physical body and mind...?" If everything is 100% objective, then what is it that has to be "linked"? The not-purely-objective nature of the very thing that you are trying to deny is what is putting you into the position of having to deny its existence.
Let me try this from a different angle. We all seem to agree with the concept of "neural correlates of consciousness." This is the idea that the experience of "blue" can be linked to a certain type of physical process in the brain. I think you want to say that the experience of blue is nothing more than this type of physical process and, to some extent, I agree. I am not a substance dualist, so I agree that we do not need to account for any additional substance. In this sense there is "nothing more" to blue than a certain type of neural activity. But I think there is a fundamental aspect of the physical process that cannot be fully explained in purely objective terms. I'm not denying that everything is physical; I'm simply denying that every aspect of what it means to be "physical" can be explained in the purely objective terms of physics as we currently understand it.
What cannot be fully explained in purely objective terms is subjectivity. If experiencing blue is a physical process (as you and I both agree that it is), then the only way to experience blue is to be a complex physical process that is, at least partially, composed of this "experiencing blue" sub-process. For simplicity, let's give this "process of experiencing blue" a name; let's call it "bluing." If a particular physical process is incapable of bluing, then, by definition, it cannot experience what it is like to see blue. Suppose I build a complex machine that is capable of thinking logically and reacting appropriately to inputs from the environment, but I construct it in such a way that it is not capable of bluing. Let's call this machine "Fred." You job, now, is to explain to Fred what it is like for you to experience blue. My contention is that you will never be able to fully explain the experience of seeing blue to Fred, so long as Fred in incapable of bluing. This is a strictly logical consequence of the fact that experiencing blue JUST IS the process of bluing. In order to fully understand the experience of blue, Fred needs to be the sort of process that Fred is incapable of being. Bluing can be thought of as a sort of perspective, and not every physical process is capable of taking this perspective.
Or, let's try this: Suppose there is something it is like to be a cube, and let's suppose that one of the essential aspects of being a cube that determines what it is like to be a cube is the 3-dimensionality. If this is the case, then a 2-dimension being can never experience what it is like to be a cube. The 2D being lacks an essential property for experiencing cube-ness, namely, the third dimension. Similarly, Fred lacks the ability to achieve the perspective that I call "bluing." My claim is that no amount of explanation - no matter how complicated - will ever convey full understanding of what it is like to experience blue so long as Fred is incapable of bluing. Why not? Because a full understanding of what it means to experience blue requires one to experience blue, and Fred cannot experience blue. These are strictly logical consequences of subjectivity. Subjectivity just is the perspective that correlates with BEING a certain type of process. No one else can experience blue for you; you need to experience it for yourself. No one can fully explain the experience of blue to you unless they can somehow get you to engage in the process of bluing. Why? Because experiencing blue JUST IS the process of bluing. This is subjectivity. Subjectivity is the perspective that arises from BEING a particular kind of process. The OBJECTIVE facts of blue are everything that you can explain to Fred about physics, optics, neuroscience, etc., but unless Fred can engage himself in the process of bluing, there will always be this one aspect of the experience of blue that he will never comprehend, namely, what it is actually like to experience blue.
If subjective experiences are 100% correlated with objective processes, then why do we need to talk about "subjective" experience at all?
Because we have objective evidence it exists. It's a convenient label for certain types of mental processes.
Quote:
The history of W2 diverges from the history of W1, thus the experiences of P1 (who started out in W1, but now lives in W2) diverges from the experiences of P2. But you need to step back and think about the overall system of W1+W2. Let's just call this total system "W". The overall system, W, does not change on account of the switch. In terms of purely objective facts, W is the same whether or not the switch occurs. There are no observable differences in the evolution of physical states that can be attributed to the switch
Quote:
As subjective beings who understand how P1's future changed
No fair pretending that there's no way to know this switch happened and then talking about people drawing conclusions from knowing the switch happened. Pick one or the other scenario and be consistent with it.
As I said before, your scenario shows that different sets of information will lead people to think differently about certain things. Of course including new observations will make our opinion different than the people who don't have those objective facts available to them. I don't see how this fundamentally makes it impossible for materialism to explain subjective thought, though.
Quote:
we can understand the change in P1's fate, but in purely objective terms, the combined system W (with W1 going one way and W2 going another) is unchanged by the switch.
False - we know that P1 and P2 are in different subsets of W1+W2 before and after the switch. You can't tell us that there's a change and then pretend us that the system is unchanged.
Quote:
The switch causes no change in the evolution of W1, or any change in the evolution of W2. In math terms: If (W1+W2)=W then (W1+0) + (W2+0) = W.
So if I go from my house to a shopping center in the same town W, that's not a change? After all, I'm still in W. Regardless of what the math might say, this is wrong.
Quote:
In purely objective terms, the switches do not effect the evolution of either world, yet as subjective beings we know that the fate of P1 changed radically, even if P1 himself doesn't realize that his future was altered.
Why does it matter if the switch has effects on the evolution of either world if we're discussing the fates of people? In purely objective terms, the switch did alter the fates of P1 and P2, otherwise you wouldn't be asking us how we feel about their changed fate.
Last edited by KCfromNC; 05-27-2013 at 07:42 AM..
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.
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.
